-
I believe the state is currently the most ‘useful’ form man has found to combat violent anarchy. Should something viable and better come along, then States will go the way of Feudalism and Animal sacrifice. I will abandon anything this is no longer useful.
-
I believe that at man’s current evolutionary point, States are inevitable. There will always be a stronger person subjecting the weaker to some form of what you would call ‘coersion’. I think AnCap philosophy fails to recognize a number of factors that will lead to this, whether it is racial pride, family bonds, regional bonds, people who like the Stones more than the Beetles bonds, and most importantly people who calculate that using guns is easier and more rewarding than working hard. At the most basic family structure you have States. When Dad tells the kids to do their chores, he is the State. (Assuming you think this ok for 2 year olds, as any rational being would, at what age are parents no longer able to ‘coerce’ children? If dad played a strong role and had a forceful personality, clans will emerge with the strong leader/father figure at the core, then enters ‘clan pride’, and the rules of competition go away. Our Clan right or wrong. I think it could also happen in the corporate world. I work for Blackwater, and we are superior, therefore we have the right to ‘coerce’ others - its for their own good.
-
If you don’t kneel before the Lich King (A guy named Tim Anderson who lives in Burbank BTW) and sware allegience to him I consider you a pagan.
-
Oh wait… applying arbitrary definitions to people seems useless. I retract my statement about being a pagan.
-
I am replying to your post, rejoice.
-
I am learning a lot actually. I have posted numerous findings and said many seem plausible including the Austrian business cycle theory, I just think it fails to accept other variables and oversimplifies, but clearly easy money contributes to business cycles in modern western economies. I also totally understand malinvestment, thanks to David and some independant research. I like the term and will probably adapt it. (I plan on profiting on this at some point: Lecture series - Political and economic ramifications of malinvestment in commercial paper markets during periods of market correction in asset backed liquidity guarentees)
-
As I said earlier, I am being bombarded with questions, with every post of mine receiving numerous responses. Its a time factor, I have little, and would need lots. I have already had to cut numerous responses short without bringing my thought process to a logical conclusion. ( This is where you attack me for showing no signs of logic) Factor in that many of you respond to my posts by giving me 3000 page homework assignements.
-
I plan on getting to that “Myth of national defense” article soon and seeing what is valid, IMO, and what is invalid and why. But again this will take time away from more replies.
If I were to travel down your road of reasoning, I think a better answer would be it didn’t work because Marx misinterpretated and overestimated the productive capacity and technological innovations in terms of their velocity in which Marx was alive during a weird era where the production possibilites seemed endless and seemless. I would have to check to see if he was alive during the classic “cigarette machine” example. If so, it would have appeared to many that Utopia was around the corner.
Ixtellor
Ixtellor,
I know you have had loads to respond to however I would like you to answer my question:
You talk a lot about prediction and empirical data when it comes to economics. Can you tell me what theory you use to interpret the data and justify that theory please?
Physiocrat
This only offers a possible explanation as to why Marx made an error. It doesn’t show what his error was. The calculation argument does that.
Can you be more specific, I am short on time, and am having trouble by what you mean in “what theory do I guse to interpret the data”
GDP declines by 1% - What theories do I have to choose from in terms of interpreting? Are you talking about causality, ramifications, the numbers themselves, or the “philosophical” theory?
Are you asking me If I use empiricism or relativism to decide if the numbers are true?
Sorry for my ignorance, perhaps you could clarfiy.
Ixtellor
For the purposes of ensuring that this thread calling someone a troll is an ad hominem. Attacking his intentions for being here is essentially attacking his character; feel free to point out instances where he does that and criticizing him for that, but don’t just call him a troll when there’s been a warning against ad homines.
That presupposes that GDP is a useful figure but leaving that aside. Suppose it declines by 1% how do you know what causes it? Did it happen because of, in spite of or independent of X? If you can’t do that you cannot extract any useful information.
I am asking a question about epistemology and more specifically economic methodology. If you do not understand the basics of this area you will not understand Austrian economics. It will be like talking about what you should do whilst driving when in fact you have never driven.
From what you have posted thus far you seem to hold the position that if a prediciton comes true then the theory, the factors stated which would bring about a result, then this validates the theory. This does not however prove causation which is critcal for economics. Supposing GDP rose when it rained and fell when it was sunny it would not follow that the weather caused the change in GDP. We need an a priori theory to ascertain this.
I disagree. If I find out I have cancer, I mostly care about “what next” and might not care at all about how it happened. If the only thing GDP does is paint a picture of current economic conditions it is useful. It acts as “information” to buyers and sellers. To dismiss any form of information would seem lazy and ineffiecent.
I am familiar with it. I did a lot of research on political theory, and one of my ‘heros’ Richard Rorty, some consider the only new theorist, wrote all his work on this subject.
I avoid this topic because it devoloves into philosophical alagories of the cave. For example: Mises believe that man acts to increase satisfaction. I might argue that this is not true, that he acts to increase the satisfaction of a creator being, or that he is an advanced machine whose every action is a preprescribed reaction to stimuli.
I realize this is a huge componant of Mises and Austrian thought. However, there seems to still be an interest in debating economics here. I also find some of his finding’s useful, particularly catallactics.
Did you want to have a debate on the definition of truth?
Or:
I believe in scientific method. I realize Mises does not think this can be done in relation to humans. Since the scientific method is being applied by Keyneisnas, I choose them.
Ixtellor
A marketing plan is a written document that details the necessary actions to achieve one or more marketing objectives. It can be for a product or service, a brand, or a product line. Marketing plans cover between one and five years.
A marketing plan may be part of an overall business plan. Solid marketing strategy is the foundation of a well-written marketing plan. While a marketing plan contains a list of actions, a marketing plan without a sound strategic foundation is of little use.
muskan
That’s ridiculous. If you have cancer finding out how it was CAUSED will help with the cure and the prevention of it. Anyway GDP is not useful for firms what they require is specific information for their industry which comes from prices not GDP. Suppose I used cows to predict how the weather would be- would it be lazy and inefficient to ignore such information or would it be a good economisation of my time?
Bangs head against the table
You might but you’d be wrong. Action demonstrates preference.
Erm. If your economic methodology is wrong your conclusions are indeterminate. Economic methodology necessarily precedes economics. Only when this is sorted can we talk economics.
I want you tell me what methodology you use and why.
Ixtellor, I still think that the basic ideas of ethics, which you have raised explicitly a couple of times should be addressed first. Not necessarily because it should turn into some major philosophical debate, but because it seems a few of your conclusions on economics are still driven by them. For example, you make an implicit call to egalitarianism from your reference of the moral ‘superiority’ of communism, but you conclude it’s impossible to achieve communism, so you conclude some government is necessary to make people on the whole (I’m assuming you’re looking at averages in this respect) ‘good.’
Now, how can you integrate your ‘practical’ view of economics with your ethical theories (unspoken) without coming to some logical errors as you have throughout the random responses (or rather your selective responses) in this thread? I’m not trying to poke you with a stick, as it were, but one cannot have cake and eat it too, if you understand me. So, unless you have some meta-theory that ties your ‘practical’ view of economics to very much idealistic/unpractical ethical conclusions (and the unspoken theory from which they are derived), then I don’t think you have much of a leg to stand on with respect to any of your ethics-tied-to-economics conclusions.
I hope you will finally respond to my inquiries, which were very serious questions and for which I believe will resolve many issues with the majority of the posters on this site. So, if you please, respond in a timely manner.
Pick another analogy. Here is my premise: Information is useful. GDP provides information to firms.
Yes Paul’s taco stand doesn’t care about GDP. But do you honestly believe that GE, Ford, Exxon, don’t not use GDP in making investment decisions?
One of the great developments from Keynes, which I have no interest in discussing because I have 892348 requests for responses, is the ability of large corportaions to whether or better plan for boom bust cycles. Regardless of how it happend, Exxon wants reliable data, so they can make decisions about how to proceed. (There is a big lag in GDP data, and I don’t want to debate that). But would you agree that Exxon has a large across the board interest in economic sectors, and thus wants to know things like “projected consumption”?)
Mises said Man acts to increase his satisfaction. Is it impossible that he acts to increase anothers satisfaction and isn’t aware of it? Some omnipotent being who controls your actions to increase THEIR satisfaction? Many fatalists and religious types believe exactly this. Why is Mises right and they are wrong? Perhaps your entire life of actions is predetermined and your just following a blueprint. Who knows what secrets DNA still hold.
I see this as a meaningless endevour, as no single premise is verifiable.
If my vocab is off forgive, but I think your asking me if I choose empiricism over a priori, in which case I choose empiricism. I don’t accept knowledge until it means my standard of empirical evidence. Considering that I am the only being in existance, I will not trust your assumptions or ‘facts’ unless they meet an empirical test.
I believe Economics is a blend of natural science, and thus can use the scientfic method, with the study of psychology.
I generally subscribe to the brain development theory… which I can not think the name of currently. That humans have the same basic brain development that can be influcenced by both biology and environment, and can be used to explain various ‘acts’ common to man. (example: Teenagers believing they are industructible)
Lastly, and scold me if you will because I am not talking about what your asking, (Hey I’m trying!) I believe there is no such thing as truth. There is only information that humans find useful, and we use it until such time as it is no longer useful. (Earth is stationary → Earth revolves around sun → Gravity → Quantom mechanics → String Theory → Future science beyond our scope → Even better → even better → Infinitity)
In terms of GDP, it can be calulated, tested, hypothozied about, reasoned with, made better, is useful information, and will be replaced someday by something better, which in turn will be replaced by something better.
Your up next! My sincere apologies. If it makes you feel better, I am postponing a 3pm meeting, JUST to answer your questions, and as a result will get home late.
Followed by Meepo (or what ever his name is on the inflation/deflation thread)
Ixtellor
P.S. I would like to test the Law of Demand. How much will you pay me for a response? If even 1 of you says 1cent, then it still works!!!
Is all information useful? If it is not, the question of whether GDP is useful for firms is not determinite from what you provided.
However, I should bring up that in our current economy, GDP is useful to predict the things that the central bank will do, since the central bank does things to affect business based on the GDP.
If a person acts to increase another person’s satisfaction, then by these means, he has increased his satisfaction. If he isn’t aware of that, he still acted to increase his satisfaction, otherwise he would not have preformed that action.
Even if we assume that predetermination is true, man acts because he THINKS he can alter his future to be more satisfying, when in reality, he has followed his predetirmened path.
Basically, this “humans act” is an axiom. If you say that it is false, then how is it possible that you are acting by posting on this forum?
You miss the point, the very fact that he is acting demonstrates that he is increasing his satisfaction.
First I would like to say, thank you for posting here, and having the patience to read and answer the questions we are asking you. I know it is tough since it is you (one man), versus all of us, and that you cannot answer every question. A little recommendation from me to you would be to step back for a day or two, and type up responses to questions. Instead, you post a response to 3 questions that were asked of you, and 6 more will be asked of you before you can get to more. I think this will also give you a little more time to read up on some of the things we are asking you to read, and perhaps allow you to give slightly more thorough answers (which might lead to the unseen consequence of less questions asked of you later!!!).
Now, I see you base many of your beliefs on GDP. It is a pretty long article, but I think it is a good basis for explaining why GDP is a bad statistic:
Now, I think a problem here is that we need to take you back to the basics of our type of thought, instead of stepping into the advanced questions automatically. A basic problem many of us have with the government spending is that the only way government can get money is through taxation (stealing from the people), or inflation (expansion of the money supply). Taxation takes money away from the private sector of the economy, where it can be used more efficiently (each individual can spend their money on what THEY value most). When the government prints money out of thin air, they hurt EVERYONE’s purchasing power by making everyone’s dollars weaker, and this is another form of theft (called the inflation tax). This also hurts different people and industries differently. The aggregates will say that inflation is 3%, but the clothing industry could have inflation of 10%, farming has 4%, computers have -20%, cars can go up 1%, etc. Also, people who are poor (and on fixed incomes, like seniors) get hurt more by inflation. Also, since different people have many different preferences, and different industries get hurt differently, everyone gets effected by inflation at different levels (not everyone has inflation of 3%).
I also don’t know how much you know about the NAP (Non Aggression Principle), but I think it would be wise to learn a little more about that because I think this will also show you a little more of where we are coming from. So even IF (and that is a big if), your system can raise output and productivity, it is still an immoral system (printing money out of thin air and stealing people’s money through inflation).
I think that is a good enough post for now, hopefully to remind you (and all these people asking millions of questions), to focus more on the basics first, and then get into the higher level arguments.
Thanks for taking your time to read this, and it is great to have someone who is actually willing to type good responses to as many people as you can.
PS. If some people are bothering you so much over foolish things, I would recommend to just ignore them, they are bringing nothing to the discussion.
Ladyattis,
I don’t spend a lot of thought on this, because its all subjective and if you think rationally you can find flaws with all, and ‘good’ things about all. But I suspect I am highly influenced by the Judeo-Christian mindset and culture that I was brought up in. I probably believe that the “Golden Rule” is the ideal utopian morality.
-
I would like to reiterate I do not endorse communism. I think it utopian and thus impossible, so striving for it is a waste of time. (I am speaking of Marxist communism where there is no government… another parallel to Austrian theories)
-
I do seperate my views on economic theory from my ‘underdeveloped’ morality theories because I don’t think it is useful. For the same reasons I would not compare quantom mechanics with the “golden rule”. Factor in that I don’t believe in Utopia, and that neither the natural sciences or the moral philosophies are ever achievable or perfectable or attainable, all the easier to ignore some of their inconsistancies.
Example: When demand from a product drops X degree (X being significant) the suppliers should reduce costs by firing workers. But my “golden rule” morality would say “dont fire him because I wouldn’t want to be fired”. (Although you might argue that “golden rule” dictates I know he needs to fire me to remain competitive, therefore I think my boss should fire me).
Or for an austrian argument regarding theft in the form of taxes. Yes taxes I suppose can be labeled theft and thus ‘wrong’, but the realist economist tells me a society can not exist without taxation, based on empirical evidence. The Articles of Confederation comes to mind. (I realize Austrians have some other rationalzation for the revolutionary depression and subsequent negative externalities, and some of them are spot ON in terms of currency controls, however… The fact that farmers were able to cause widespread damage and mayhem and the government was helpless to stop it, was a major waking up point for the Founding Fathers, who realizing the importance of the Fed gov to be able to TAX, give it said power absolutely. The non-coercive pro-states rights attempt under the articles did not work, as States refused to contribute for the collective good - that good being = protect rampaging farmers from killing me and burning down my business).
Are there Austrian examples of States with no taxes that were successful? Perhaps I am totally wrong, but empiricism tells me "Taxes are a necessary (read useful) evil, even if it goes 100% against my moral or philosophical beliefs.
There is NO arguing that in democracies, people will be forced to do things they dont want to do. For example I don’t want to pay taxes, but I do. I don’t want to be threatened with violence and punishment for driving my vehicle 150mph, but I will be, and I accept that for the stablity of our society. I guess you can infer that I think stable societies are ‘good’, but it leaves soo much room for ridicule (see Atlas Shrugged, see 1984) that I don’t wish to argue the point. Simply that ‘speed limits’ are useful and empirical evidence will back up my claim.
So rather than pigeon hole me with “This is my philosophy” I would much rather engage on case by case business with the overarching model being 'Is X useful to human society or not". Drunk driving laws = YES. Drug laws = NO. Free Speech = YES. Child Porn = NO.
Did this help answer your question ladyattis? If not, perhaps you can clarify and I can attempt again.
Ixtellor
P.S. 7 am report writing here I come. Mises would argue I get more satisfaction from responding to you than writing reports and he would be 100% correct.
I was about to do real work, when I read your great post. Which brings me to something I have been thinking about for days now.
I don’t see the austrian theories on free riders and Olson’s law of large groups. (Empirically Olson’s argument stands up to scrutiny)
I disagree with you premise that people will be more effiicient in all cases because of the problem of free riders and the value placed on some high value products. The classic examples, being education, justice, healthcare, and clean environments. Empirically, people will not pay for justice and clean environments if they believe they can benefit without action - action might be $. Governments instantly solve the problem of free riders, be eliminating choice and forcing the $ be spent on justice, education, and clean environments.
If a person in an austrian society believes he can NOT pay for a service but still receive it, what would compel them to pay or would that service not exist, with Justice being on my mind. ( I am confident Justice would be very scarce in austrian societies, for reasons I have typed at lenght about)
Ixtellor
YEA!! more reading. I just discovered that the Myth on National Defense is 390 pages long and this is at the top of my list, so who knows when I will get to NAP. I will point out that I feel I did a good job of critiquing the myth of natural monopolies in regards electric power grids, to which I did receive a response or acknowledgement that the Text had a 100% empirical failure when it came to California energy markets.
Ixtellor
P.S. Ok now I need to be productive.
but this is one of the main problems with the number crunching that keynesians do. you try to compensate in the present for things whose effects have already played out. this exacerbates the boom bust cycle as during the boom you are still reacting to the bust and vice-versa.
Priceless.
…