Is it hard for you to be an Economist???

[filc]

Hehe, AttackDonkey, I like your sig.

[Amanojack]

@Spideynw

I have come to the conclusion that there really is no “economics”. In reality, when one says “economics”, one is generally referring to the study of the consequences of government policies on the market and the individual. Which means if there were no government, there would be no economics to study.

Insightful. Even Austrian business cycle theory is only applicable when there is a central bank or a central money-issuer (State). May the entire field of political economy shrivel into a mere warning of what not to go back to (not to go back to having states).

[SilentXtarian]

Conza88

I don’t quite get what you mean.

“If a theory is correct, then it does work in practice; if it does not work in practice, then it is a bad theory. The common separation between theory and practice is an artificial and fallacious one. But this is true in ethics as well as anything else. If an ethical ideal is inherently “impractical,” that is, if it cannot work in practice, then it is a poor ideal and should be discarded forthwith.” - Egalitarianism Revolt Against Nature

First of all, we don’t really have a minarchist state. We haven’t really put it in practice. I’d say the period from the end of the Civil War to the end of the Civil Rights marches- we greatly expanded our individual liberties. But, aside from that, in general- the state hasn’t really been practicing values of minarchism. There always have been people who have wanted to use the state for ulterior motives, and things which the constitution didn’t design it for.

I’d suggest you keep reading about anarcho-capitalism. Do you think the free market works? Well what about a free market in defense? In roads? The courts? etc. there have been examples of those throughout history - it has worked before and will work again.

Right. I think that the free market works. I know that a free market system of roads very well can work and can be easily funded. You really have to be careful about what you mean when you talk about free market courts. I’m fine for a privatized court system- I just think there should be a unified system of laws, so, courts couldn’t just charge people for arbitrary reasons. It’s not like people have unlimited money to always find other courts that would help change a ruling that was against them. As for free market defense- it depends on what you mean by defense. One could argue that Blackwater (while yes, it’s not really a true free market form of defense, it’s socialized military) is an example of how market defense isn’t really such a good thing to ask for.

Not sure how you’re going to go about defending the state, or denying anarchism - but I’d be interested. That was the reason for the call for a thread if you wanted to discuss these ideas, not keep bumping this dead thread.

Okay. I see your point. I’m not denying anarchism. In fact, I see minarchism as the road to real anarchism, because, otherwise we would have all the problems we currently do now with a state- just without it. It’ll take me some time to make a topic on this.

And you didn’t find FNL convincing? It’s a good intro, the key is to keep reading on.

It was pretty convincing. But I prefer to keep an open mind to different points of views. I’m a non-ideological thinker. Like I said before- my beliefs aren’t really set in stone.

[Esuric]

@AJ

Insightful. Even Austrian business cycle theory is only applicable when there is a central bank or a central money-issuer (State). May the entire field of political economy shrivel into a mere warning of what not to go back to (not to go back to having states).

Not true. Business cycles exist with or without a central bank, and Austrian economists have spent much time explaining this process. Economics is a field of science which inquires to understand the process by which market forces allocate scarce resources towards warranted productions/satiates various subjective desires. Economics exists with or without a state, the same way that physics exists with or without a state.

[Valject]

@krazy kaju

Look, I’m sorry to inform you of this, but you aren’t an economist. An economist is someone who has a PhD or an MS/MA in economics from a legitimate university/college or someone whose professional job title is “economist.” Besides that, very few people can actually be called economists. Only because you read a few books by some economists doesn’t make you one.

I’m not insulting you, as the same applies to me and the rest of the board (with a few exceptions like George Selgin who has been known to post on this board every once in a while).

An economist is defined both as someone who specializes in the field of economics and someone who practices economy. Economy is the management of affairs, be it household, business, or monetary. An economy is also defined as thrift. I’m pretty sure you could point to anyone on this board and call them an economist. Even the definition stating that an economist is one who specializes in economics in no way implies that that person has to specialize and have a pedigree. I’m not insulting you. Just pointing out that there are standards of diction for a reason.

[Amanojack]

@Esuric

@AJ

Insightful. Even Austrian business cycle theory is only applicable when there is a central bank or a central money-issuer (State). May the entire field of political economy shrivel into a mere warning of what not to go back to (not to go back to having states).

Not true. Business cycles exist with or without a central bank, and Austrian economists have spent much time explaining this process.

I said central bank or State (I should have said “regulator” instead of “issuer”). Are you saying there will still be significant business cycles in anarchy?

@Esuric

Economics is a field of science which inquires to understand the process by which market forces allocate scarce resources towards warranted productions/satiates various subjective desires. Economics exists with or without a state, the same way that physics exists with or without a state.

I agree. I was speaking more in the context of Spideynw’s “what people are generally referring to” when they say “economics,” not economics as a purely academic pursuit.

[Angurse]

@Spideynw

I have come to the conclusion that there really is no “economics”. In reality, when one says “economics”, one is generally referring to the study of the consequences of government policies on the market and the individual. Which means if there were no government, there would be no economics to study. And really, the only thing one needs to know about this subject is that governments consume wealth, and the private sector creates wealth.

No such thing as a firm?

[Esuric]

@AJ

I said central bank or State (I should have said “regulator” instead of “issuer”). Are you saying there will still be significant business cycles in anarchy?

Yes. Unless anarchy somehow eliminates price rigidity, asymmetric information, and keeps the money supply perfectly stable.

[Amanojack]

Can you explain how that works? Note I said significant business cycles. I am not disagreeing, because economics is not my field, but I would like to know.

[Conza]

@SilentXtarian

First of all, we don’t really have a minarchist state. We haven’t really put it in practice.

That’s because states generally grow - considering their nature. Those in power seek to increase it, they are just following their self interest.

“Ever had one?” Is more appropriate - and to that I answer: the Articles of Confederation? That grew into the Constitution. Then the US into an empire, where the majority of it’s citizens directly and indirectly slave to it. You don’t consider the American experiment, an experiment in limited government at all? [:S]

@SilentXtarian

I’d say the period from the end of the Civil War to the end of the Civil Rights marches- we greatly expanded our individual liberties.

‘We’ did? How?

@SilentXtarian

But, aside from that, in general- the state hasn’t really been practicing values of minarchism. There always have been people who have wanted to use the state for ulterior motives, and things which the constitution didn’t design it for.

I’d say it is - minarchism involves theft & extortion. That’s what the state does.

@SilentXtarian

Right. I think that the free market works. I know that a free market system of roads very well can work and can be easily funded. You really have to be careful about what you mean when you talk about free market courts. I’m fine for a privatized court system- I just think there should be a unified system of laws, so, courts couldn’t just charge people for arbitrary reasons.

You should read Ethics of Liberty next, it’s really the step up from For A New Liberty - into the advanced area. I’m not for a david friedmanite form or anarchism either. I do think you should investigate the matter of law in anarchism further though, as I hope you will.

@SilentXtarian

As for free market defense- it depends on what you mean by defense. One could argue that Blackwater (while yes, it’s not really a true free market form of defense, it’s socialized military) is an example of how market defense isn’t really such a good thing to ask for.

No More Military Socialism - MNR [:)]

@SilentXtarian

It was pretty convincing. But I prefer to keep an open mind to different points of views. I’m a non-ideological thinker. Like I said before- my beliefs aren’t really set in stone.

Do you have any principles though that you try to abide by? i.e Non aggression etc?

[joshnorris14]

@AJ

Note I said significant business cycles. I am not disagreeing, because economics is not my field, but I would like to know.

Tulipmania was caused by the interest rate being lower than the natural interest rate even though the Dutch had a sound monetary policy with free coinage laws. Because the rest of Europe was prone to devaluation of the money, investors flocked to the sound money of the Dutch causing the interest rate to fall artificially.

[Amanojack]

Would there still be significant business cycles in global anarchy?

[Jon_Irenicus]

As a moderator I would expect wiser comments from you.

And as a person willing to post on such a subject I’d at least expect you to be informed…

[Spideynw]

@Esuric

Not true. Business cycles exist with or without a central bank,

I guess it depends on what you mean by “business cycles”. Corporations are a construct of the state. Since there would not be corporations without the state, you couldn’t have “corporation cycles”. Would there be mis-allocations of resources in a free market? Well of course, but they would be rectified very quickly. I just don’t see what the point would be of studying “business cycles” in a free market. You are just saying that the market is not perfect. So what? What would be the point of knowing that?

[Esuric]

@AJ

Can you explain how that works? Note I said significant business cycles. I am not disagreeing, because economics is not my field, but I would like to know.

Business cycles, recessions, and depressions (not the same thing) are the inevitable result of a mismatch between preferences and prices. Prices coordinate production, but differences in information, lags in price adjustments, and a variable money supply, collectively disturb this allocation and coordination process.

@Spideynw

Would there be mis-allocations of resources in a free market? Well of course, but they would be rectified very quickly. I just don’t see what the point would be of studying “business cycles” in a free market. You are just saying that the market is not perfect. So what? What would be the point of knowing that?

I don’t know what you mean when you say “free market.” Does your notion of free market mean 100% reserves? Does it mean some kind of fiat money which is perfectly invariable? The supply of money is not constant under 100% reserve gold standards. I don’t think you understand how complicated this question is. You need to tell me what you mean by “free market,” and then we can have a 40 page conversation about what business cycles would look like in such a world.

Also, Austrians tend to focus on the actual cycle itself, that is, the recurrence of a boom followed by a bust followed by a boom, so on and so forth. But you can have permanent busts which don’t follow booms. You can have one cycle of boom and bust, not followed by another boom. There are also financial crises caused by simple human error (taking on too much risk), which can send shock waves throughout the entire financial system, impacting real economic activity.

[SilentXtarian]

@Conza88

‘We’ did? How?

I’d say that minority rights were greatly expanded during this time. It’s entirely consistent with liberal principles to expand rights of the disenfranchised minority through common law. I don’t necessarily agree with affirmative action- but it’s one thing to say that all people are equal, and to have laws on the books that discriminate against people who are of different color than we are. In a society that has laws, and, has a government- increasing rights via legislation is the only real way to bring about an increase in individual rights, as to what I meant by that statement.

I’d say it is - minarchism involves theft & extortion. That’s what the state does.

I view things quite differently from you. In my view- the people who have advocated minarchism have always been in the minority. The majority of people in the state have advocated for bigger government policies, and for more and more restrictions on civil liberties. As for your statement about theft and extortion- saying that’s what the state does, I don’t agree with you entirely. The state DOES practice theft and extortion. However, minarchism would only involve theft and extortion as punishment on criminals, and the people that would wish to disrupt society (the trouble makers who hurt people, etc). I recommend you read Ludwig Von Mises’s works on minarchism to get more of a clear grasp on the philosophy behind it.

And for the record- I’m for a volunteerist state- with the least possible coercion- it would take a whole new thread for me to define my position- but basically I think the state has the power to make the laws, and people elect legislators to write them, and they can only affect individual behavior to a minimum- in so far as one’s behavior doesn’t harm someone else. People are free to harm themselves. But they can’t harm other people. That’s my understanding of the NAP.

You should read Ethics of Liberty next, it’s really the step up from For A New Liberty - into the advanced area. I’m not for a david friedmanite form or anarchism either. I do think you should investigate the matter of law in anarchism further though, as I hope you will.

Okay. I thought you were trying to sway me to anarchism. I’ll definitely look more at the inner works of anarchism. I just somewhat unclear about how it would work in practice.

No More Military Socialism - MNR

I’m against mercs. I’m for somewhat of a public-private military. I don’t mean fascism. But I mean I’m more for a private military- like the founding fathers wanted. They wanted the people to be part of large militias, and, congress would fund them. I’d be for a militia. I just think that rather than letting them all go wild though- that they should still abide to what the constitution says, and to whatever treaties we agree with (the ones that make the use of aggressive force illegal, which the UN itself doesn’t even seem to abide to these days).

@SilentXtarian

It was pretty convincing. But I prefer to keep an open mind to different points of views. I’m a non-ideological thinker. Like I said before- my beliefs aren’t really set in stone.

Do you have any principles though that you try to abide by? i.e Non aggression etc?

Yes. I try to abide by the NAP. I don’t physically try to hurt anyone. I’m for Democracy and Peace. I believe in the right of self-determination. I like what Ludwg Von Mises says in this regards. We have to persuade others through peace and be tolerant of people with different beliefs because otherwise we’d be no better off in a minarchist government than a totalitarian regime. I’m for individual rights and liberties for all. I think that people should be allowed to live their life and free from control from public and private institutions- that is, I believe in the fundamental right of choice, and, I don’t think that public or private institutions should the choices one makes that is part of their individual life. I’m against wars. ETC. I’m for freedom of speech even when it offends me. I have in the past got offended so much that I wanted the other person punished for them things I don’t like to me… but I try to keep myself in check. That kind of thing.

[Conza]

@SilentXtarian

I’d say that minority rights were greatly expanded during this time. It’s entirely consistent with liberal principles to expand rights of the disenfranchised minority through common law. I don’t necessarily agree with affirmative action- but it’s one thing to say that all people are equal, and to have laws on the books that discriminate against people who are of different color than we are. In a society that has laws, and, has a government- increasing rights via legislation is the only real way to bring about an increase in individual rights, as to what I meant by that statement.

Governments don’t grant rights. “Rights” only make sense when framed as property rights. The government cannot “increase” them, since it must violate them to exist.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html

"However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society."

@SilentXtarian

I view things quite differently from you. In my view- the people who have advocated minarchism have always been in the minority. The majority of people in the state have advocated for bigger government policies, and for more and more restrictions on civil liberties. As for your statement about theft and extortion- saying that’s what the state does, I don’t agree with you entirely. The state DOES practice theft and extortion. However, minarchism would only involve theft and extortion as punishment on criminals, and the people that would wish to disrupt society (the trouble makers who hurt people, etc). I recommend you read Ludwig Von Mises’s works on minarchism to get more of a clear grasp on the philosophy behind it.

Yeah, those who wanted to impose the Constitution on the American people where in the minority. How is the “government” in minarchism to be financed, if not by theft and coercion? I recommend you also read Liberalism to get a grasp of the philosophy behind it - then read Ethics of Liberty or Molinari, or anyone else - who fill in the reasons (technical considerations) Mises held out on.

@SilentXtarian

And for the record- I’m for a volunteerist state- with the least possible coercion- it would take a whole new thread for me to define my position- but basically I think the state has the power to make the laws, and people elect legislators to write them, and they can only affect individual behavior to a minimum- in so far as one’s behavior doesn’t harm someone else. People are free to harm themselves. But they can’t harm other people. That’s my understanding of the NAP.

So you wouldn’t force me into your “state”? You believe in secession to the individual level then? Legislation has nothing to do with liberty though - legal positivism is the anti-thesis of it.

Legal and political theory have committed much mischief by failing to pinpoint physical invasion as the only human action that should be illegal and that justifies the use of physical violence to combat it. The vague concept of “harm” is substituted for the precise one of physical violence.[13] Consider the following two examples. Jim is courting Susan and is just about to win her hand in marriage, when suddenly Bob appears on the scene and wins her away. Surely Bob has done great “harm” to Jim. Once a nonphysical-invasion sense of harm is adopted, almost any outlaw act might be justified. Should Jim be able to “enjoin” Bob’s very existence?[14]

For more on the “harm” principle - here.

@SilentXtarian

You should read Ethics of Liberty next, it’s really the step up from For A New Liberty - into the advanced area. I’m not for a david friedmanite form or anarchism either. I do think you should investigate the matter of law in anarchism further though, as I hope you will.

Okay. I thought you were trying to sway me to anarchism. I’ll definitely look more at the inner works of anarchism. I just somewhat unclear about how it would work in practice.

Ah, that should read "I’m not for a david friedmanite form of anarchism either." Typo, sorry.

@SilentXtarian

No More Military Socialism - MNR

I’m against mercs. I’m for somewhat of a public-private military. I don’t mean fascism. But I mean I’m more for a private military- like the founding fathers wanted. They wanted the people to be part of large militias, and, congress would fund them. I’d be for a militia. I just think that rather than letting them all go wild though- that they should still abide to what the constitution says, and to whatever treaties we agree with (the ones that make the use of aggressive force illegal, which the UN itself doesn’t even seem to abide to these days).

Did you read the link? To be frank - nothing you mention, makes it seem like you did. It specifically addresses Private Defense, the issue at hand - and touches upon how law in anarchy would work.

Public-private military (PPP’s) are the worst of both worlds. The founders were against standing armies.

@SilentXtarian

Yes. I try to abide by the NAP. I don’t physically try to hurt anyone.

That’s good you are against the initiation and threat of physical violence. So you’re conception of “government” wouldn’t “tax” anyone?

[Spideynw]

@Esuric

I don’t know what you mean when you say “free market.”

Free market means not government controlled. The market decides on the currency.

@Esuric

Does your notion of free market mean 100% reserves?

Yes. FRB is fraud.

Anyways, what would be the point of discussing business cycles, if there is no government to affect it? It would be like talking about the fact that everyone is born and everyone dies. No one can do anything about it, so why would there be any discussion about it?

[scineram]

@Spideynw

Anyways, what would be the point of discussing business cycles, if there is no government to affect it? It would be like talking about the fact that everyone is born and everyone dies. No one can do anything about it, so why would there be any discussion about it?

Maybe a government can be instituted to improve things.

[Jon_Irenicus]

Yeah provided by improve one means worsen.