And who said we do?
As I already pointed out, Stephen has shown he is not interested in a discussion.
Don’t be so confrontational. I wasn’t referring to you. [:)]
It becomes less obvious when people admit their emotion. Stephen can easily ignore the hard questions and focus on people’s emotional questions. IE the thread becomes cluttered and the specific, important, points are easily ignored. And again I’m not specifically talking about you, so calm down. [:)]
My apologies.
Oh, I didn’t think you were. I was just pointing out that Stephen has consistently demonstrated a lack of interest in a discussion and I doubt he will address Lilburne’s question.
Yes thats sadly becoming apparent. He doesn’t realize that we are trying to help him.
Stephen, you have given no indication thus far that you have even considered the possibility that your proposal might be faulty. You seem to believe that your proposal would “accomplish all those things” that it has set out to do. We have patiently, for seven pages now, explained why your proposal is impossible. And we haven’t heard a legitimate argument from your direction. Rather than consider the possibility that your proposal may be flawed, your responses indicate that the problem lies with us. You seem to believe that you have brought your proposal to the wrong audience, that if you had only taken it to a forum “populated with libertarians”, you may have received a much warmer response. I hate to break it to you, but this forum is filled with libertarians. Not the constitution-thumping libertarians who are ignorant of economics, mind you, but libertarians who derive their beliefs from an understanding of sound economic theory. The libertarians here do not hold their beliefs due to some whimsical desire to see less government intervention in the world, but because we understand the consequences of violent intervention in the market.
So you could take your proposal to a less economically savvy libertarian forum. You may there find the encouragement you are seeking. They may read your proposal and consider it plausible. And that would be reassuring. But it would be a lie. And to accept a lie because it is comforting to to one’s view of the world is intellectually dishonest. It is akin to the child who stubbornly clutches to the belief in Santa Claus even while given evidence to the contrary, simply because the belief in a jolly fat man is more comfortable to their personal inclinations.
You should consider yourself fortunate that you have come to a place that won’t just accept your ideas at face-value, and will critically examine them. A resource such as this forum is rare, and gives you the opportunity to understand the flaws in reasoning that led to certain mistaken conclusions; to learn from those mistakes and grow in knowledge and wisdom. If you honestly put forth the effort to understand where you have erred, rather than to seek reassurance from those less qualified to judge your works, you will be a better person for it. Detach your personal feelings from your work, examine that work with an critical eye, and do not overlook the wisdom and advice of others. Remember, “all of your failures are training grounds.”
Here are my recommendations for further study:
A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
Democracy: The God That Failed, by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
What Has Government Done to Our Money?, by Murray N. Rothbard
Money, Bank Credit, and Economic Cycles, by Jesus Huerta de Soto
Best regards,
Bright
JosephBright level of pwnage is over 9000!
Re JosephBright, “marked as not answered:”
For the record, specifically rebutted twice (much less the less direct rebuttals in various places on the thread).
Re JosephBright’s most recent scolding:
It seems to me that posters here have consistently misunderstood what I’m saying. I’m not saying Austrian economics is wrong. I’m saying there are possibly other routes to the goals that its implementation would achieve (which I have listed numerous times), one of them being the route I propose In “How to Improve Capitalism.”
I thought that the idea of an exogenously determined money supply that can’t be manipulated would be interesting to people who see the nature of the money supply as being the most central concern of the structure and functioning of the economy. I thougtht that, at a minimum, it would lead to some fruitful discussion of the topic of money, especially given the reference to F.A. Hayek and “neutral money” in my original post. To say it hasn’t worked out that way is quite the understatement.
Re Jack Cuyler’s list of my misundertandings of Austrian theory:
Thank you. Sincerely. That clarifies lots of things. Again, I came to this forum assuminng it was a place where libertarians gathered. I was completely ignorant of the important difference between Austrians and (at least some) libertarians regarding political action. While I was completely off base, I did address “libertarians” in my greeting; had someone written this post at the start, we could all have been spared a fair amount of aggravation.
It is not about Austrian. It is anarchists who happens to be libertarian.
You can’t implement Austrian economics.
To Austrians, neutral money doesn’t exist.
He’s politer than I am.
Re McKibbin’s quote of Farmer, regarding the locationof my original posting.
I contacted.Tucker expressing a desire to disseminate my ideas, and he asked if I had posted on the Mises forum.
What I think many here would tell you is we encourage competing monetary units. A unit of exchange is a market good just like a banana or anything else. We encourage you to fill that entrepreneurial roll of speculating other forms of units of exchange. We can only give you advise from an economic stance as to whether your speculation is likely to succeed or not.
Remember that it’s speculation on our parts as well. The actual methods by which units of exchange develop in a free market is to be decided by entrepreneurs, and consumers, not economists. Still, it is in your best interest, especially as a business dealing with money, to understand money and credit first. Many folks here have posted some good texts! GL Stephen. [:)]
Were you looking for honest appraisals, discussions and critiques of your ideas, or were you expecting people to tell you what a great idea you’ve had?
There is a route around economics like there is a path around physics. With that in mind, let me show you my plans on how you can improve your gas mileage via water and magnets.
No, we have not. You seem to think that if you repeat that enough times, it will become true. We completely understand the consequences of your proposal, which is why we are critical of it.
Then why not take the time to understand what Austrian economics says about money?
And we are saying that there aren’t any other routes other than the market. And this is by the very definition of what money is, which you refuse to inform yourself about.
Money emerges on the market, not in the minds of economists and social planners.
But it is you who doesn’t seem to be interested in a discussion on the topic of money. Whenever we try to explain to you how your thoughts on money are flawed, you dismiss these points. Please, try to understand money before you go around trying to fix the monetary system. Read this: http://mises.org/money.asp
Re Filc, “competing monetary units:”
Thank you for your specificity. That and Cuyler’s previous post have been given me some good information. You see, I came to this forum ignorant of Austrian economics–or at least what it has evolved into. (A Survey of the LIterature on “neutral money,” which was the starting point for those who would establish Austrian economics, was part of my Master’s Thesis, so I thought I knew the basics of it, but I was wrong about that.) But I thought I was addressing libertarians, you see. I’ve learned that adherents of Austrian economics are libertarians, but not politically oriented in the sense that I assumed libertarians to be. If I am now understanding correctly, Austrians hold that even the determination of the money supply should be outside the scope of any formal organization or institution, but purely the result of the interplay of market forces, in which some proffered monies flourish and some perish. Am I at least starting to catching on?
quite.
I hope that in time you come to believe that Tucker did you a service recommending you to visit us
Bingo [Y]
This works out to consumer sovereignty.