Interesting (TLDR type) comments on "Supporters of Capitalism are Crazy, Says Harvard" article

[Jon_Irenicus]

"You made a valid point. You are right about what you wrote: Quote:
The problem is complex but for me to sum it up, it is more a problem
of people trying to make profits off of leveraging other people’s
funds. Left unchecked and unregulated, they over extended to the point
where a 10% downturn led to forced liquidation.

I think others do not understand the whole concept of leverage as you
clearly do. It is also correct that there is something wrong with the
‘unregulated’ part, exactly as you wrote.

The problem, however, is deeper. When people want to use leverage
through mortgages, the banks can only give those people the loan to be
used for leverage, through creating new money.

According to Austrian theory, this means that the investors only see
an opportunity to use leverage in the first place, because the banks
are allowed to use the mechanism of fractional reserve to create the
money thus asked for.

This creates three problems.

The first is, macro economically speaking, there is more money put
into the economy. And since there is no corresponding increase in
production, the money must be put against something into the economy
already existing. The longer something exists, the more the money is
put against exactly that. Simply said, the money is put against the
more durable products. Houses are the most durable, and therefore they
are the one that raise the most in prices. That is why this scheme
leads to a feedback loop, whereby the prices of houses rise, which
makes investors see that that is the place where money can be made
most easily, through mortgages, which lets them go to banks for
lending money to leverage, which causes more money to be put into the
economy, which causes the prices of houses to rise more etc, until
there is no real relationship between the effort needed to create
houses, and their prices. So there is an imbalance in the economy.

The second problem, and that is what leads to its breakdown is this.
The more it seems that money can be earned in this way through
leverage, the greater the demand for people to buy houses through
mortgages. But there are simply not enough ‘sound buyers of houses’ to
sell these mortgages to. So there is a search going on for more people
willing but NOT ABLE to buy houses, and pay for the mortgages. This
makes the investments in houses more speculative, and more risky. This
is the stimulus of taking more risk, and the causing of more
insecurity in society Austrian business cycle theory is talking about
in this particular case.

The third problem is this. The banks do not lend the money for these
mortgages for nothing. They want to have more money back in the form
of interest payments. But this interest is NOT created by the banks
‘out of thin air’ also. So, macro-economically speaking, this money
must come from somewhere else. If it does not, then the investment
becomes even more risky. The new homeowners, who could afford the
money less in the first place, cannot even find the interest on the
mortgages in the economy, because it is not created also. This speeds
up the defaulting. The banks then come into a position whereby they do
not only not get the interest back, but they do not even get back the
principal. This is lost. The banks therefore cannot create more money
out of thin air, because the rules forbid it. They therefore cannot
provide credit for other investments. This then IS the ‘credit
crisis’.

The funny thing is, that the government CAN solve the problem, at
least temporarily. If the government increases the deficit spending
through selling government bonds to the FED, it creates, within
society the extra money needed to pay the interest on the mortgage
loans. This will delay the collapse of the monetary system for maybe a
decade. Therefore I expect the ‘big collapse’ to occur about 8 to 10
years from now, that is, around 2017 - 2020.

What is the root of the problem? It is simply that the banks are
allowed to create money ‘out of thin air’. They are allowed to receive
interest on money they have not gotten from savers. So they do not
have any RIGHT on this interest. It is a form of robbery, and, very
funny if you think about it, a corroboration of the thesis of a.
Rodbertus (See Eugen von Böhm Bawerk’s first book on Capital and
Interest, the exploitation theory of Interest), that interest is
theft. In this case, indeed it is. If you are not capable to make a
clear distinction between ‘honest interest’ and ‘deceptive interest’,
then this IS an argument against ‘Capitalism’. This is so, because you
NEED to solve the Interest problem as stated by Eugen von Böhm Bawerk
to solve this problem.

As far as I know, within Austrian economics NOBODY has solved the
Interest problem yet. which Eugen von Böhm Bawerk devoted his entire
life to solve, but he himself admitted not to have solved.

To solve it, according to Eugen von Böhm Bawerk, you need two
questions to answer. He could not solve either of the two questions.
The first is: what is the ORIGIN of Interest? The second is : what is
the JUSTIFICATION of interest?

Maybe surprising for many, it is George Reisman who solved the first
problem. He has shown, that within a really free market, there is no
‘extra money interest problem’ as I explained above, because,
macroscopically speaking, the extra money comes from those who consume
AFTER production. And these are the Investors. You must go through his
whole book, especially the flowcharts at the end of his book, AND his
explanation on his own website, to see that this is, indeed, the
solution.

The second problem, the JUSTIFICATION problem, is still an unsolved
problem. I think I have solved it, and I am writing a book about it.
But let us return to you.

You make a valid point when you say: ‘Left unchecked and unregulated,
they over extended to the point where a 10% downturn led to forced
liquidation.’ This point, though, is not an answer, but a question.
The question is: what regluation, in particular, is needed?

The answer is as follows. By ACCEPTING fiat money, instead of gold,
and by not outlawing fractional reserve banking, and identifying it as
the crime it is, as is explained by De Soto, people are CONNED by
bankers. The business cycles are the result of corrupt banking. I do
not think that it is on purpose, but it is because there is no full
understanding of the nature of fractional reserve banking. And this is
because of the fact, that the Interest problem is not solved.
Especially it is NOT solved by Austrian economics. That is why the
points you raise are valid one’s.

So what is needed is two things. A solution of the justification part
of the Interest problem. And, as a consequence, an absolute ban on any
form of fractional reserve banking.

So what is needed is, indeed a further regulation, as you say. What is
needed, to be exact, is only ONE SPECIFIC regulation. And that is a
complete outlawing of any form of fractional reserve banking. If I
would be ‘in charge’, I would even put nothing less than the death
penalty on fractional reserve banking in any form whatsoever. This
would be enough to make the economy completely sound. There would
still be crises, but only when there is a major breakthrough in
science and technology. These crises would be very mild one’s, and in
the eyes of what we now consider to be crises, so laughable in their
scope, that we could consider them virtually nonexistent.

Thanks for you response.

To answer your question requires some digression.

The time preference theory is exactly what Eugen von Böhm Bawerk came
up with, but afther long thought he rejected it.

Ludwig von Mises believed nevertheless, that the time theory of
interest as put forward by Bawerk was the solution to both questions
about interest. The reason why Ludwig von Mises thought that Eugen von
Böhm Bawerk did not see this, was because Eugen von Böhm Bawerk did
not have the concept of Human Action that is the cornerstone of Ludwig
von Mises’ vision.

In particular there is the problem of ‘length of production lines’.
Mises thought that Eugen von Böhm Bawerk became confused, because
Bawerk thought he had to consider the whole ‘length of time’ for any
capital good to even exist. So all of history, from the stone age,
should be part of the production lines leading to the present wealth,
if you wanted to have a sound theory of interest. Von Mises identified
this as a mistake, because the concept of Human Action assumes
(correctly) that, economically speaking, only the future is important.
History does not play a part in economy, economically speaking. This
is, because human action takes the present as a given, and considers
it as less satisfactory than something imagined into the future. Human
action is then the means that transforms the present (less
satisfactory) condition into the more satisfactory condition in the
future.

The only distinction that is important in Misean analysis is that
between goods and land. A good is ‘something that disappears in time,
even if not used’, while ‘land’ is something that MIGHT be the result
of actions of the present, but do not disappear when no action is
taken. So ‘land’ becomes a technical term. This insight solved the
problem of Bawerk, Mises believed. And, indeed, it is a significant
breakthrough.

Human action, at any moment in time, is driven by the difference
between the less satisfactory condition of the present and the more
satisfactory condition imagined in the future. When that last
condition has been become an actuality, the aim of the action has been
reached.

This means, that you do not have to consider all of history, as Eugen
von Böhm Bawerk believed. And therefore von Mises had thought that he
had given a single justification for time preference, and therefore
for interest, which was fully convincing. While Eugen von Böhm Bawerk
needed three, none of which were fully convincing.

The problem with the time preference theory is this: It states, that
any good or service in the present has a greater value than that same
good or service in the future. Therefore, if you exchange a present
good against a future good in monetary terms, you must be compensated
for this difference in value. This difference in value, expressed in
monetary terms, IS interest.

This theory is the consequence from the ‘subjective evaluation theory
of value’, worked out through the marginal utility theory of value.

The problem is, that the marginal utility theory of value is simply
wrong. Why? Because it is based on three things. Utility, scarcity,
and subjective evaluation.

I think that utility and value have nothing whatsoever to do with each
other. Value is a totally different phenomenon than Ludwig von Mises
thought it was. In that sense I am not a Misean.

To be frank, I have a completely new theory of value, which I consider
to be the next step in the Austrian theory of value. I have succeeded
to derive the concept of value DIRECTLY from the concept of Human
Action in a way, that even leads to a Cardinal Measure of value.

My own theory of value has one thing in common with Ludwig von Mises’
theory of value, though. In that sense I ‘stand on his shoulders’.
Both his concept of value and mine are dependent on the individual.
The difference is that he makes it dependent on the valuation of the
individual, while I make it only dependent on the action of the
individual. (Action as defined by von Mises: ‘Human action is
purposeful behavior.’) I think the step I have made might cause such a
deepening of Austrian economics, that nobody is able to ignore it any
more.

It is my opinion, that the very fact that value is based on subjective
evaluation is the very reason why Austrian economics is not
mainstream. As I said, I am writing it all down now in my own book, so
I am not going to explain it here. I just point at some problems that
might convince you that the Austrian theory of economic value just
‘does not cut it’.

To summarize, the Austrian theory of economic value assumes, that
value is the result of three things: utility, scarcity and subjective
evaluation. It is related to ‘action’, in the sense ‘that we prefer to
have the results of our actions as soon as possible’. It then leads to
the concept of ‘time preference’, which is identical with the concept
of interest, when connected to money.

What is the problem with this? It is that scarcity is a very important
part of the Austrian theory of value.

And that is exactly why I reject it. Why? Because if scarcity is part
of a theory of value, then the same objection can be raised against it
that can be raised against the Marxian theory of value. It ‘assumes
that the goods and services are already there’, and therefore it
implies that THE definition of economy in its full generality is:

“Economy is the science that studies the distribution of scarce means
among competing ends”.

This is the definition accepted by Rothbard. I consider it strange,
that nobody within the von Mises community has pointed out, that this
definition is in essence socialist.

The problem with this definition is that it leaves production out of
the picture. Why? Because production is a particular kind of human
action. A kind of human action that has as its result the diminishing
of scarcity. And that very fact shows, that economy has to be more
than just ‘the DISTRIBUTION of scarce means among competing ends’.

Reisman’s definition is better. He defines economy as the science that
studies the production of wealth under a system of division of labor.
I almost agree with this definition. I would only like to replace the
word: ‘production’ with ‘creation’. This is because I do not believe
in the belief, that human action is not creative, because it ‘just
rearranges the elements of nature’. A rearrangement can lead to actual
creation in the sense that you can have a combination of elements,
that unites into a whole, that does the exact opposite of its
components. Just consider water. It consists of two gases, one highly
explosive, hydrogen, and the other is a catalyzer of fire. But, both
combined lead to water, which can be used to extinguish fire. If water
was ‘just a rearrangement of hydrogen and oxygen’, and you knew that
hydrogen is an explosive gas, while oxygen is a catalyzer of fire,
then you would shrudder by the suggestion, that you must use water to
extinguish fire.

The fact is, that the ‘mere rearrangement’ of hydrogen and oxygen, two
gases, leads to a liquid having properties that cannot be explained by
just considering hydrogen and oxygen. This is because the properties
of water are the result of the interaction between hydrogen and
oxygen. Therefore, the term ‘mere rearrangement’ is a huge misnomer.
Arrangement can lead to a whole having properties that is not present
in any of its components, and which might not even have existed
before. Therefore human action can lead, through rearrangements to
creation. And that is why I want to replace ‘production of wealth’
with ‘creation of wealth’ in Reisman’s definition.

That this is very important can be seen by an article that appeared on
this very website a short while ago. Somebody defended that file
sharing (torrent websites) should be made completely legal, and that
all products in the form of information, should have no price
attached, because they were not scarce.

There has to be something very wrong about this, because movies,
music, computer programs etc. are all definitely forms of wealth,
created through human action. And therefore, in a completely honest
economy, the makers should be paid for making them. The very fact,
that file sharing websites were defended through using a scarcity
argument on this very website shows to me, that the value theory of
von Mises ‘just is not it’. And therefore, despite the genius of von
Mises, this part of his theory is the archilles heel, and this is why
it fails to convince the rest of the economic world.

Mind you, I consider the von Mises economic theory the best of all of
the known economic theories there is. But it is just not good enough
to really solve ‘the big problems’ we now have in our society. To give
just one example, even the simple fact that making more money leads to
a decrease in value of the monetary unit cannot be PROVED by the
Misean economy theory, simply because value is based on ‘subjective
evaluation’. The concept of ‘subjective evaluation’ is just too weak
to prove this statement. A really convincing economic theory of value
should be able to PROVE this statement, which we all know to be true.
My point is, we know it (except when we are Keynesians), but it does
not FOLLOW FROM Misean economics.

Or, to give a concrete example, if you assert that increasing the
amount of money in circulation will cause a devaluation of the
monetary unit, then a Keynesian could object, by stating that
increases of the money supply wil STIMULATE more people to ‘get the
extra money’, hence stimulate production, and, therefore, by the very
fact that value is the result of subjective evaluation, will do the
exact opposite. It will INCREASE the value of money. This means, that
you can use Misean economics to defend Keynes! And this just because
‘subjective evaluation’ is one of the components of the value theory
of Misean economics.

One of the the two words ‘time preference’ is ‘preference’, hence
‘subjective evaluation’. And therefore it is NOT a justification of
interest. At most it is a different way to describe interest. It is a
pseudo-explanation for the justification of the following sort: ‘Why
does John drink milk? Because he is a Milk Drinker.’ It is a question
reformulated as an answer.

And that is why ‘time preference’ is no justification for interest.

Source.

[wombatron]

Making the usual error of conflating praxeological preference with psychological preference? I admit only skimmed it.

[maxpot46]

@Jon Irenicus

To give
just one example, even the simple fact that making more money leads to
a decrease in value of the monetary unit cannot be PROVED by the
Misean economy theory, simply because value is based on ‘subjective
evaluation’. The concept of ‘subjective evaluation’ is just too weak
to prove this statement. A really convincing economic theory of value
should be able to PROVE this statement, which we all know to be true.
My point is, we know it (except when we are Keynesians), but it does
not FOLLOW FROM Misean economics.

Mises’ praxeological construction of the law of marginal utility proves that increasing the quantity of money decreases its subjective value (to those that receive it) without having to define the value cardinally.

@Jon Irenicus

Or, to give a concrete example, if you assert that increasing the
amount of money in circulation will cause a devaluation of the
monetary unit, then a Keynesian could object, by stating that
increases of the money supply wil STIMULATE more people to ‘get the
extra money’, hence stimulate production, and, therefore, by the very
fact that value is the result of subjective evaluation, will do the
exact opposite. It will INCREASE the value of money. This means, that
you can use Misean economics to defend Keynes!

This view can’t be deductively derived from an axiom as marginal utility can.

Finally, his attack on Mises’ theory of value stems from his subjective opinion that “in a completely honest
economy, the makers should be paid for making [Intellectual Property]”. This is hardly axiomatic, and seems to suffer from a version of the original distribution fallacy (usually associated with Pareto optimization) in assuming that the current compensation model for creators of IP is ideal and valid.

[Jon_Irenicus]

He was probed to explain and he gave these lengthy response:

I am not going to explain my value theory on this forum. My value theory is just too great a breakthrough to just spill on a forum.

What I am prepared to disclose here is what my value theory is not. My value theory is NOT the Mercantilistic value theory. (I.e. gold HAS a yellow color, and HAS value, as if these two properties are the same.) It is NOT the utility theory of value. It is NOT the labor theory of value. It is NOT the quantity theory of value. It is NOT the scarcity theory of value. It is NOT the service theory of value of Bastiat. It is NOT the marginal utility theory of value. It is NOT the subjective judgement theory of value. And, lastly, Cost and value are NOT the same thing. (This is also a response to David Ch.) .

Despite the fact that it is none of these, it has elements of all of them in it, in the sense that it explains why all of them at one time or another could have been mistaken as an explanation of value. Despite the fact, that my theory addresses all of the previous theories of value, it is not a complicated theory. Usually, when I describe it, I begin with an example that is a real surprise to many, and then I derive the basic principle from it, which most agree on to be ridiculously simple. Nevertheless, it does have the power to really explain the concept of economic value fully. In fact, because the concept is so simple, I usually have great trouble to convince people that it IS the solution. They cannot believe that it is THAT simple! That is why I am now writing a book about it. It is my intention to show that my principle of value IS the solution, and is able to solve ALL problems we now have about economic value. That is why I am now moving through all of economy, and show how it solves the problem of value in all cases.

Let me tell you what is the minimum I ask to disclose it. I am prepared to explain my value theory in a lecture. To persuade me to do that, you have to arrange it, and pay all of my expenses to deliver it, including the cost of travel and lodging. (I live in Holland.)

Recently, I gave a lecture on my value theory here, in Holland, in the Hague, to a group of libertarians. Two of them were economists. They both said they were so impressed, that they would teach it in their classes immediately.

• To Jaycephus.

There is an interesting book, with the title: The Pirate’s Dilemma.

http://www.amazon.com/Pirates-Dilemma-Culture-Reinventing-Capitalism/dp/1416532188

This book was a real challenge to my value theory, but it survived it, in the sense that it could show a way out. The exchange of information products through filesharing can be addressed in such a way, that this technology can become a new step to creating wealth just like the printing press once was.

The subject is too vast to do full justice here, but let me at least try.

My own vision on this, after reading this book and applying my own value theory on this particular problem, is that THIS technology, despite the havoc it causes now, is THE thing that will cause a revolution comparable to the Industrial revolution.

What I mean is this. Before the printing press, knowledge as such was not free. It was enclosed in the Guild system. Knowledge (which is not the same as information, there is a subtle difference) was so very closely guarded, that when a member of a guild moved from one country to another, and used his knowledge there, his family could be imprisoned, and there was a death warranty put onto his head.

Before the printing press, knowledge was a source of secure income. This changed with the printing press. The only way to make books that were worth while to buy, and to take on the work to learn to read and write, was to put the knowledge of the guilds in them.

There were some attempts to stop this, but it was no use. The security based on knowledge was gone. There had to be another source of secure income. And the funny thing is, that those same books played a role in it.

There was one thing you could not put into the book. SKILL. To be precies, the skill necessary to transform knowledge into products. So what happened is this. If you could COMBINE the knowledge of many books, you could make products that would not be possible before, because it was impossible that there was so much secret knowledge in the mind of ONE man. But now, with all of these books containing this previously secret knowledge lying around, no knowledge could be kept secret. This enabled people to spend a number of years in studying a whole collection of these books, and then learn to apply far more knowledge on one task than could ever be done before. But, as more people began to do this, they competed with each other in making more and more complex products and tools, which required longer and longer periods of studying.

This long period of studying in itself became the NEW source of secure income. Moreover, it led directly to the Industrial Revolution. How? The tools became larger and larger, and became machines. And the machines required complete buildings designed for them. This led to the phenomenon of ‘worker’ or ‘laborer’. (As Reisman has made clear in his book Capitalism, the first farmers were not workers, but, as economic agents, must be identified as early capitalists. I would rather say, that the distinction did not exist before the Industrial Revolution.)

This also led to the typical Industrial Revolution notion of ‘payment by years of experience’. For the longer the time you spent in a particular job, the better you became in applying more and more knowledge, which is the essence of skill, and the greater the value you had for your employer. This is the economic sense behind raises in payment for more years in experience.

All this basically ended, when the computer entered the scene. We look at the computer as an information tool, that is, a knowledge took, but, basically, it isn’t. With computers it is possible to do with SKILLS what the printing press did with KNOWLEDGE.

This point became clear to me a number of years ago. I had produced a music CD, and I wanted to have a jacket and a label for it, and didn’t know squad how to do that. I had two choices. Either I paid € 300 for a professional designer who did this for me, OR I bought a computer program for justs € 20 that was so user friendly, that I needed only 1 hour to master it, with which I could design my own jacket and label. Moreover, with that computer program it was not just a one time affair, but once I had the computer program under control, I could make such jackets and labels for any future product I liked, even when the box was not standard. In other words, a computer program does not only contain knowledge like a book, but also the skill like in a very experienced worker! This was quite a revelation to me.

This is also, why so many people lose their jobs in the Information revolution. It is mostly skilled workers who lose their job. If you learn to work with a computer, you, together with the computer, can learn to form a ‘system’ in just 3 to 6 MONTHS that is the equivalent of a worker with 20 to 30 YEARS of experience, if not more. And you can do that just by learning to work with computer programs containing the skills belonging to a certain field.

THE question of the information revolution is: where is the certainty?

It has to be in something that cannot be stored into a computer. Information can be stored into a computer. Skill can be stored into a computer. To give one more example, if you want to be the equivalent of a concert pianist, you just study notes, midi and steptime, and you can play any piano piece, complete with ocrhestra you like. You can be your own pianist and conductor and orchestra, just by yourself, with only one computer. I myself have made a church organ performance of the entire Das Wohltemperierte Klavier with a number of virtual church organs in that way. Before me, there were only three other complete church organ performances of the WTK. It took me 2 years, including the skill building. It took those others 20 years, EXCLUDING the skill building!

But no matter how user-friendly you try to make the interface (the graphical interface was a real breakthrough in this respect), the computer is unable to do two things. It is unable to UNDERSTAND, and it is unable to BE CREATIVE. And that is where the certainty moves to.

More and more people are paid for their ability to understand and for their creativity. The more you learn to use the computer, the more skills you are able to combine, the more you can make with your understanding and creativity.

History is now repeating itself. More and more people use their ability to understand and to create to open more and more possibilities. The money lies in people who can combine skills in months that, each separately, would take 20 to 30 years to master before. With spectacular results. To give just one example I found very impressive. With computer programs a SINGLE engineer can now design a ship that have the size of entire cities. This would be beyond the capability of any engineer, and even any team of engineers before the computer.

That is partly what the book "The Pirate’s Dilemma’ is addressing. Although it does not give a solution to the problem. It makes it very clear, and gives a hint to a direction of a solution.

So what filesharing will do, is giving people access to the skills of others. Skills as such become as valueless through the computer as knowledge became through the printing press. Value now moves from skill to creativity and understanding. And we are in the middle of this transition. If we move thrhoug this, we will see a tremendous increase in wealth, comparable to the difference between the Middle Ages and the mass production of the Industrial Revolution. We will see products appear, that will even dwarf the ships I just mention.

To return to my value theory. An economic theory that has solved the value problem is, I think, absolutely crucial to make this happen. A theory that can be applied to whatever the new source of value will be in the future. And that is what I think to have found.

Seems his theory will remain a mystery… but obviously it’s solved the problems.

And then there’s this scientistic jerkoff:

Von Mises, Rothbard, Hazlett, and many other libertarians were, and are, part of an ongoing campaign aimed at smearing John Maynard Keynes based on lies,untruths ,and canards. And why?

Because the business cycle is due to technological and financial innovations that create endogenous uncertainty (not just an element of uncertainty;uncertainty is the major problem. No person has a chance of ever getting Keynes down correctly until they recognize this basic fact).UNCERTAINTY OF THE FUTURE IS THE MAJOR PROBLEM. Only Keynes,Ellsberg ,and Mandelbrot have clearcut technical analysis dealing with it. No Austrian or Libertarian economist has ever shown how to deal technically with uncertainty in formal,analytic terms.

Will someone on here please demonstrate to me that they have the basic knowledge of Austrian capital theory. Read Stefan Schmitz’s “Uncertainty in the Austrian Theory of Capital”,The Review of Austrian Economics,17:1,67-85,2004. Schmitz’s suggested remedy, for dealing with the failure of Austrians to deal with uncertainty in capital theory,is to integrate non additive capacities into Austrian capital theory. However,non additive capacities are merely one kind of probabilistic upper-lower interval bound first analyzed by J M Keynes and discussed in detail in chapters 15,17,20,22,and 26 of the 1921 A Treatise on Probability (TP).

While Rothbard realizes that uncertainty is important , he can’t provide any analysis to explain why and how.Only J M Keynes did this in the TP.The GT is based on the TP.In fact,the GT is merely an application of the general theory of decision making under uncertainty/ignorance/risk developed by Keynes.

Oil Shock:

Let me take a moment to correct some of your more egregious errors before I return to Keynes. Volcker is not a conservative Keynesian. Greenspan is not a conservative Keynesian. Keynes was a lifelong opponent of deficit finance/budget deficits.There is no such thing as monetary socialism except in your own private libertarian world.

Keynes has a theory and a model that explains and analyzes the roles of uncertainty and ignorance in human decision making.The Austrians have nothing except talk. Austrians like to talk about uncertainty.That’s it.

Where does Rothbard,von Mises or Hayek provide a theory and a model of dealing with uncertainty and ignorance ? The answer is that they don’t.Their assertion or claim is that decision making under ignorance and/ or uncertainty leads to the same result as decision making under risk or certainty

DO NOT RESIST FORMALISATION! YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED!

[nirgrahamUK]

i dont like the fellow you’ve here qouted.

i would explain why…only… my reasons are too awesome to be spilled on a mere forum…

[wombatron]

@nirgrahamUK

i dont like the fellow you’ve here qouted.

i would explain why…only… my reasons are too awesome to be spilled on a mere forum…

Indeed. Although you could at least do everyone the pleasure of writing a long, off-topic rant that doesn’t answer any of the questions raised.