Nice to see you still pop in every once in awhile.
Would be even better if his responses were more clear & concise like the above.
Brain has a pension for philosophy and philosophers rarely give a concise response. [:P]
Reading, writing, & thinking about philosophy does not automatically mean one must become a linguistical* mystic.
*Nevermind, it’s a real word.
No…but it helps!
I have no guaranteed source of monetary income, and I don’t live in my own home. Do I fit into this demographic, even though I currently support this economic system?
Seems like he assumes a-c’s will work towards and support ecnomic centralization (very privileged aristocrats) and ignores the option of a cooperative yet voluntary system of action.
Thanks for the responses people. My friend Keith doesn’t have an account here, but I did give him the link to this thread for him to read. This is what he says:
"The level of hypocrisy, denial, and ignorance is amazing in this thread.
COMMODITY DOES NOT EQUAL CURRENCY. YOU CAN’T INTERCHANGE DEFINITIONS IN YOUR LOGIC. DEFLATION IS THEFT LIKE INFLATION IS THEFT. THE U.S. CONSTITUTION GIVES THE DUTY TO CONGRESS TO REGULATE THE VALUE [DEFLATION AND INFLATION] OF THE CURRENCY. THE DUTY OF THE FREE MARKET IS TO REGULATE THE VALUE OF THE COMMODITIES.
LAND IS ALSO VERY UNIQUE. IT IS NECESSARY FOR SURVIVAL, STRICTLY LIMITED, AND NOT CREATED BY LABOR."
My sincere apologies for angering your friend Keith.
Caps lock: Cruise Control for cool…but you still need to steer.
Aw c’mon, I don’t want start an “oldfag vs newfag” rivalry like on other forums!
Formal response to our thread - http://libertyrevival.wordpress.com/2010/02/07/why-public-fiat/
To summarize my point the problem with Georgism is that it assumes value is inherent in land or any other good. Consider the problem of unimproved land as it often the argument of Georgian theorists, in which a person or people sit on a piece of land unimproved for a period of time until the bidding prices reach a level that is acceptable to the supposed squatters. The problem is that prices define the economic value, not the economic value as some metaphysical essence defining the price.
People who want something will pay for it one way or another, whether it’s in money or something else (via direct or indirect barter). As such people pay what they get because they value whatever they give in exchange for the land less than the land itself. But to tax the value of the land based on that price is arbitrary, it has no value outside of the subjective assessment of value (as express as money price or whatever is exchanged for it). How can one say land sold for X price should be taxed at Y value compared to another similar parcel at Y price for Z value? There is no objective measure to compare either sale as the value is always as stated prior a subjective assessment between buyer and seller.
Equally, there is a side effect to Georgist tax schemes: over use of land. What I mean by this is when the price is suppressed as to lower the unimproved land tax (or often called LVT in countries that have it) then the sale of land happens to go to people or companies that may not utilize the land best in terms of what the land can actually bear. For example in Japan, where they have LVT, many farmers have been ousted from their land because of non-payment or inability to pay the LVT bill. Thus, other people who pay off the LVT get the title, then afterward utilize what was really good land for farming, for paving it over for houses or shops. Which means Japan now depends more on other nations to offer food as they’re losing productive capacity. Thus, in many ways the Georgist/land-use theorists often lead themselves to absurd situations where ecological and productive capacities are permanently lost all in the name of some sort of geography equality among human beings.
Also, some land simply has no use because our technology has yet to catch up like land at the bottom of the ocean, how does one value it in an LVT bill? Or how about land on Mars? Or any other place that for humans productive capacity is outstripped by continual capital investment.
I’ll simply end this post with this note: if you want equality of opportunity in land then stop taxing land altogether and stop zoning it to some collective whim or wish. Otherwise, expect people to misuse and misallocate land.
Actually, deflation is not theft. I am assuming here that you are defining deflation as a fall in the general price level, not as a decrease in the money supply.
When there is a fall in the general price level caused by the supply of goods increasing, there are two parties affected:
-
Those that cause this deflation (producers who expand production). These people will be earning more money in real terms.
-
Those that are producing the same as before. These people will receive less money in nominal terms, but this money will have the same purchasing power as before, because of the fall in prices. Therefore their purchasing power remains the same in real terms.
Theft only occurs due to price inflation caused by monetary expansion. Then, those who get the money first, before the price structure adjusts, gain at the expense of those who get it last. I hadn’t bothered to read your essays or even click on your articles until I read through this thread. But if they are anything like the above post, I must conclude that the rest of your statements are probably as rash and thoughtless as the above. Oh, and it’s quite interesting that this Keith character opens his post with three ad-homs “hypocrisy, denial, and ignorance.”
Also, what is up with the caps lock? And why is it such a difficulty to create an account and post for yourself?
Giving part one a cursory glance, the main gripe seems to revolve around a secret nature of Volker Fund and its role in the eventual outpour of think-tanks, NGO’s and information-I suppose what is deemed to be the impetus of an Austrian cult. The second is an objection to land ownership via homesteading rights due to the difference between land and capital. Here is an excerpt
Ludwig von Mises acknowledged in several places wholly unique distinctions between land and capital, but in his zeal to denounce land value tax, stated that,
“Classical economy erred when it assigned land a distinct place in its theoretical scheme. Land is, in its economic sense, a factor of production, and the laws determining the formation of the prices of land are the same that determine the formation of other forms of production.”
Or, paraphrasing of Jay Leno, go ahead and buy up the land. We’ll make more. The difference between land and capital is huge, and explains why the cost of silicon chips goes down as demand goes up, while the cost of Silicon Valley goes up as demand goes up. There is no natural monopolization of capital, but, with state sanction, there is monopolization of land. But von Mises would sooner obscure these distinctions in socialist fashion than to embrace a proposal he mistakenly thought to be socialist.
From part 2:
“The myth (or deliberate lie) from the Austrian School that World War II got us out of the Great Depression is one of the greatest lies (and acts of stupidity) ever told.”
I think my head might explode if i ever got into an argument with this guy.
Okay, this guy is clearly pull libelous crap then. X_X
Complete misconception on his part (whether purposeful or inadvertent, I can’t tell).
He is describing the lie of Keynesian’s / some Neo-Classiscts / mainstream & attributing it to the Austrians. If he can’t be humble enough to accept that, then maybe you can claim idiocy & move on.
Non-native English speaker here, is he claiming that Austrians say that WWII got the U.S. out of the Great Depression?
I’m always astounded at just how confused we humans are capable of being. If you have a way to relay recommendations back to this fellow, I would recommend, based on a cursory reading of his articles, that he refute the arguments of Austrian economists directly, i.e. on their own terms, in lieu of conspiracy theories and ad hominem arguments that, even if true, are irrelevant. Stalin was an evil man. Stalin believed that 2+2=4. But 2+2 really does equal 4, and the fact that evil men may believe the truth is irrelevant to whether or not it is true. Assuming that this author’s conspiracy theories regarding the Austrians are all true, they are all servants of some hidden royalty bent on re-instituting feudalism, that gives me no reason to disbelieve the regression theorem or the law of supply and demand, etc.
Clayton -