Perfectly true, though I don’t see how this is in conflict with anything I have said.
Perfectly true, though I don’t see how this is in conflict with anything I have said.
I have no idea how you managed to deduce that from anything I have said.
Those wages are coming only from those who willingly sold their shares. They are not coming from you, and the “benefit to society” is an empty and meaningless value judgement. All value is subjective and those who buy and sell shares on a voluntary basis are the only ones in the position to judge whether such transactions benefit themselves or not.
Webster’s Dictionary -
Gamble
1 a : to play a game for money or property b : to bet on an uncertain outcome
2 : to stake something on a contingency : take a chance
Speculate
1 a : to meditate on or ponder a subject : reflect b : to review something idly or casually and often inconclusively
2 : to assume a business risk in hope of gain; especially : to buy or sell in expectation of profiting from market fluctuations
Assuming most of us are believers in Austrian Economics and that it is the only true or real brand of Economics, then it is safe to say we all agree in principal with one of it’s most basic laws that seperates itself with Keynesianism, etc.. Human behavior is unpredictable. Because we are led to believe that is true then we are indeed staking something (our own money) on a contigency (information we are given) then who are we to assure ourselves that what we are told is true? The unpredictability of humans alone, whether they be consumers or producers, establish a business risk so long as we don’t have crystal balls.
Whether it be brands falling in and out of favor at the drop of a hat, (CROCS) or merely a few individuals ruining an “investment” via cooking books (ENRON) any time, regardless if its a ZERO SUM GAME or NOT - does not change the definition nor the realities behind RISK and UNPREDICTABILITY.
Those are the only 2 functions necessary to define something as a gamble, speculation, or investment because without those two variables then there is no seperation.
Stocks, Football picks, Blackjack, loaing money to a friend, etc.. etc… the odds may be different, the payoff / risk may change but in no way are they seperate when you get down to the lowest common denominator.
They are eventually. If there are any people, in society who get goods and services given to them in return for useless pseudo-work, then, regardless of who gives them those goods and services in the first instance, we eventually all pay. Label the useless people X, label the people who pay them A. Then the goods produced by A will now be more expensive for the rest of us because we are competing for them with X.
That’s strange. I thought that part of the whole laissez faire principle was based on the theory that people doing the best for themselves coincided with what was best for society. If you want to suggest that what is best for society is unmeasurable twaddle, then presumably you can’t possibly agree with the theory.
I can’t make any sense out of this.
Additionally, society is robbed of the possibility of benefiting from whatever the group X would have produced, had they been prevented from doing their pseudo-work.
You don’t quite understand or fully grasp value theory. This has been the common denominator behind all of your bickering in other threads as well.
Society isn’t robbed of anything. What an individual chooses to do with his wealth is his own business. The “possibility of benefiting” some group X over some group Y is again, an empty value judgement by you. Obviously the individual had a different value judgement.
If I buy shoes, I don’t buy hats. So I benefit the shoe maker at the expense of the hat maker. What kind of a complaint is that?
Why is it that some Austrian economists go to the trouble of writing essays along the grounds of “please don’t attack speculators… if we analyze the consequences of their behavior we shall see that it can benefit society by helping to avoiding shortages”. Why don’t the essays simply consist of “They can do it if they want. Mind your own business”.
Why don’t you criticize their essays and say “Your essay is nonsense because it is impossible to measure whether shortages are a detriment to society”.
Who specifically, and where?
Economics is a value free science. When an Austrian communicates a value preference, that is not a value preference of AE, but himself.
It’s like saying if Obama is the President of the United States, and he enjoys eating pizza, then pizza is America’s favourite food.
Can you not see the error in this line of reasoning?
You mean because he was born in Kenya?
j/k
Quoting from http://mises.org/daily/2381 it states “It is in this spirit that I offer the present essay, an examination the social benefits stock .”
What’s that all about?
The analysis of the economists are not based on their own value judgement regarding whether the production of article Y is more beneficial or less beneficial then the production of article X. This is the sort of value judgement that you are making.
The analysis of those economists is always from the point of view of those who are willing to buy and sell and whether their needs are being satisfied or not. Is capital being allocated into those areas that are most profitable? Is it being allocated to where consumers’ valuation of their use is higher?
You have not made the case that the stock market does not satisfy this requirement including the short term buying and selling and all the various other forms of speculations.
More from http://mises.org/daily/2381 “accurate stock prices are crucial to an efficient use of society’s resources. The average Joe — and senator! — doesn’t need to worry about supply disruptions, labor disputes, or natural resource exhaustion.”
That seems loaded up with stuff about benefits to society.
Read the first sentence. Libertarian economists. Not Austrian economists, Libertarian economists.
You’ve badly misunderstood that one, but then if you don’t understand Austrian price theory…
What is the difference?
- and what camp is R.Murphy in?
Austrian economics refers to a school of thought.
Libertarianism refers to politics.
I think Murphy is in both camps.
Gold and stocks are not the same thing. Gold, just like copper, silver, etc., always has and always will have some real value. Stock does not has to have any value and you can not always get your dividend. When I buy stocks on market I gamble and I know I gamble just as I know I gamble when I play poker.
I personally don’t like the idea that company value is increased or decreased based on speculations.
I think you’re missing the point that value is subjective. There is no intrinsic value in anything. Things only have value because people value them.