I never really followed Spawk’s videos so I only got Fringe’s side of that, but from what I understand Spawk questioned the ability of a stateless society to maintain a defensive force against invading states without defense agencies essentially becoming states. The ensuing debate left him unconvinced and he not only rejected anarchism/anti-statism, but libertarianism and the Austrian school altogether. I think he subscribes to some variant of Keynesianism now.
So because a victim cannot defend itself, that’s cause for not supporting the victim? Interesting stuff, I can’t wait for the sequel.
@Stephen Adkins
I understand that the contraction isnt what causes the bust in austrian theory, the distortion of the structure of production is. What I am saying is that there is nothing inherently bad about this distortion if it can be maintained. (And that I think it can be mainted.)
If you never follow my videos then do you think it was fair of you to say that Im not interested in truth? Anyhow, the debate with fringe only got me to reject anti statism. My leaving Austrianism , and libertarianism, had diffrent causes. And yea, keynesianism has a lot of influence on me now.
Victim? I’m not interest in who the victim is. I rejected libertarian morality a long time ago Politically, Im usually fairly utilitarian, with certain contextual limits. I am interested in what works.
I think I have already cleared up the money and reaoures thing in another comment on this fourum. As for my deleting your comment, you are confused as to the cause. When the maker of a video leaves a comment it is shot to the top, and so most people will see it. Your comments were, in my judgment, just plain stupid. You were denying the way PPF curves are used in macro economics. I didn’t think that was worth taking the space of the top of my comments. However, if you are still upset about the wiki cite then, accidentally, I can give you another. I decided late last night to watcha presentation by roger garrison on the ATBC , which you can find on youtube if you search for the austrian theory of the busniess cycle. Anyhow, in that he uses the PPF curve the same way I was, and the same way marco economics texts generally do.
Does war work?
“I understand that [the distortion of the structure of production] causes the bust in austrian theory…What I am saying is that there is nothing inherently bad about this distortion if it can be maintained. (And that I think it can be mainted.)”
Based on your understanding of the distortion in the structure of production, and that this distortion is a matter of real things being wasted (resources being, to varying degrees, inconvertibly sunk into lines for which the consumers do not have as urgent a demand as compared to other potential lines), can you help me to understand why you believe such a distortion in the structure of production is sustainable?
Thank you.
You’re right, that wasn’t fair. I like to think of myself as more diplomatic than that but I guess I was just reacting based off what I’d heard from Fringe. Sorry about that.
"Do you hav a source for this? Roger Garrsion claims that mises was the first to posit the theory , and that he did so in his 1912 book “The Theory of Money and credit”. "
First to posit a theory of money and credit. He wasn’t the first to found the way of thinking.
I’m sure there are other lectures you can find on the history of the Austrian school. If you need more, just ask.
You didn’t delete my “comment” you deleted our whole debate and blocked me.
I didn’t deny the way PPF curves are used. I pointed out that your putting money on one axis of the PPF curve and resources on the other axis is not the correct use of the PPF curve. Then to defend your assertion that the PPF curve applies to money in your example, you point to a Wikipedia citation that points to 1957 paper entitled The Measurement of Productive Efficiency by M. J. Farrell that deals with American agriculture.
http://www.lib.ctgu.edu.cn:8080/wxcd/qw/285.pdf
You say you want debate but you are more concerned about whose comments show up at the top. I guess you are ignorant of the fact that as you make more comments that the comments that are at the top of your page change. You are far too concerned with your own ego.
If you had won our little debate then it would have been my ignorance that would have been highlighted for all to see and it would have been a win for you, but that’s not how it worked out is it?
A boom is not exemplified by investors hoping futily to make profits, only to eventually give up and cut their losses. Booms are incredibly profitable. They’re just not sustainable,
This is something you should already understand before you make ill-informed videos on Youtube.