Politics, Society etc.

Variable · Jul 16, 2011, 05:25 PM

meh, not really. I'm just tired so I'm going to let you guys think for me.

pissedandpierced · Jul 16, 2011, 07:29 PM

The police have been outside this morning and the local shopping centre where I live had riot vans and loads of police about and the pub near me had an EDL meet and protest. Each to their own but I don't want any of that vile bullshit on my door step.

tarkil · Jul 18, 2011, 06:36 AM

So Corey, I've been doing my homework, and read most of your links already (I'm still missing the last one "A Primer on Austrian Economics").

And sure, I definitely agree that the crisis has been caused by the laxist monetary policy... Of course, if money is "free", people will invest it in any kind of shit, and there will be no selection in good / bad investments, leading to what we saw !

What I understood less is what does this have to do with rationality of actors (which even after reading your links on the matter still appear to me to be a "hypothesis" for efficiency of free market) ?
Sure, if government wasn't fucking things up in the first place, there may be less / no room for actors to fuck things up even more, but I'm not sure it would still work perfectly due to the bias in human beings...

Care to develop that a bit for me ? If possible, with no huge text, I'm lazy...

kthx

Variable · Jul 18, 2011, 06:39 AM

Of fuck you man. For getting all serious and shit.

alvarezbassist17 · Jul 18, 2011, 06:39 AM

yeah, i will tomorrow when i get all my shit done.

it makes me so fucking happy that you actually read them and outright reject them, gracias!

tarkil · Jul 18, 2011, 06:42 AM

Quote from: alvarezbassist17 on Jul 18, 2011, 06:39 AM
yeah, i will tomorrow when i get all my shit done.

it makes me so fucking happy that you actually read them and outright reject them, gracias!

I don't outright reject them, I'm asking you for more info...

alvarezbassist17 · Jul 18, 2011, 06:44 AM

oh hahaha my bad, i meant *didn't* outright reject them. I think the caffeine is wearing off haha

tarkil · Jul 18, 2011, 06:47 AM

Oh OK OK, i see... Sure, why would I outright reject stuff ?

Plus I told you, I believe in theoretical free market, I'm just unsure to which extent it is applicable to real life....

alvarezbassist17 · Jul 18, 2011, 06:52 AM

just because the most reasonable and cool people can turn extremely stubborn when you challenge their views, and at least in the US, it's such that I have to posture myself defensively and am always shocked to hear an open mind. But yeah, I'm totally with you, and i've got your answer coming up by sometime tomorrow/tomorrow night for shizzle

tarkil · Jul 18, 2011, 06:53 AM

Don't worry, I understand people being lazy / having a life, so I'll be waiting

alvarezbassist17 · Jul 26, 2011, 06:16 PM

Quote from: tarkil on Jul 18, 2011, 06:36 AM
So Corey, I've been doing my homework, and read most of your links already (I'm still missing the last one "A Primer on Austrian Economics").

And sure, I definitely agree that the crisis has been caused by the laxist monetary policy... Of course, if money is "free", people will invest it in any kind of shit, and there will be no selection in good / bad investments, leading to what we saw !

What I understood less is what does this have to do with rationality of actors (which even after reading your links on the matter still appear to me to be a "hypothesis" for efficiency of free market) ?
Sure, if government wasn't fucking things up in the first place, there may be less / no room for actors to fuck things up even more, but I'm not sure it would still work perfectly due to the bias in human beings...

Care to develop that a bit for me ? If possible, with no huge text, I'm lazy...

kthx

Okay, I wasn't ever really saying that things would be perfect, it's just that the incentives would be in the right place to work towards "perfection" or something similar. There would still be bad investments from time to time, but the mechanisms to recognize whether it is a bad investment or not would not be hindered by inflation or preferential regulation; it would simply fail if it was not profitable (desirable by enough people). I've never claimed that it would be perfect all the time, but the point is, it would be better by several orders of magnitude. Because it is everyone's own money at stake, you have ~6 billion individual minds making rational (the point of those articles dealing with rationality is that "rationality" in this sense deals with people acting and making decisions to better their own personal standard of living. Example: in hindsight, withdrawing and spending one's home equity doesn't make sense, unless you're house is perpetually increasing in value. It didn't seem like a stupid decision at the time when the person judged rationally (not necessarily wisely) that withdrawing and spending his home equity bettered his standard of living. Point being, you want to make policy so that acting rationally (in the Mises sense) and acting wisely are one and the same, which they haven't been because of policies described before) decisions based on the price system, as opposed to any single government or government agency.

The thing is, you can't compare people's stupid behavior in this paradigm of public property, bailouts, inflationary fiat currencies, and legally-influenced fractional-reserve banking to what stupid activities might occur under economic freedom because the incentives coming from the bailouts, etc. have induced this past behavior. Does that make any sense at all?

I felt like this quote sort of illustrates what I'm talking about:

"Former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan would suggest that "irrational exuberance" has the power to escalate asset prices. He could certainly claim exuberance, but there is nothing irrational in investing in higher-yield projects instead of watching your idle savings lose their purchasing power because of inflation"

This doesn't just fly for investments. Given that an oil field in an ocean is essentially public property, would it not make more sense to quickly harvest as much oil as possible before your competitor can do the same? From the opposite perspective, given that an oil-field is private property, would it not make more sense to harvest oil more slowly, so as to preserve the field for as long as possible as well as preserving resale value (because no other competitor can just get a permit for the same property)?

alvarezbassist17 · Jul 27, 2011, 05:34 AM

Found these conversations rather interesting, thought I'd post them for all to read.

Person #1 -
‎"Everyone by now should know that our current war on drugs makes no more sense than alcohol prohibition did in the 1920s." — Ron Paul, Liberty Defined

Corey Wright -
Best book ever. Here's a good little addendum to that point:

Ten Years After Decriminalization, Drug Abuse Down by Half in Portugal
http://breakthematrix.com/health/ten-years-decriminalization-drug-abuse-portugal/

#1 -
Haha it was his status for his web page today (although I do have the book and it's amazing)... And I think a perfectly relevant topic, could you imagine the tax money we'd rake in from weed alone?!

Corey Wright
Mehhh, I'd rather they just cut back to '02-'03 and beyond spending levels than rely on taxing drugs (I'm sure that's not what you were saying though, haha). It'd be a better play (definitely economically, probably not politically) for the...m to just sell off a bunch of assets, financial holdings, land holdings, etc. rather than try to raise more revenue from the voluntary sector (hurting an already declining economy), if they really can't make the necessary spending reductions. Here's good little 5-minute bit on that:

Austrian Economist, Robert Murphy on the Debt Ceiling
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-51rFiljBo

Person #2
but now they've created a monster. if they decriminalized a lot of stuff, how are the super rich, armed & powerful cartels and big dealers going to react? their source of income will take a big hit, and it won't be pretty.

Corey Wright
Well, aside from the point that I can't think of a better way to take their feet out from under them than taking away their funding, there's the point that it isn't exactly pretty given the billions spent and millions incarcerated. Just ask Mexico.

#2 -
it's going to be a violent transition while the dealers and growers try to find ways to continue making as much as they're making now. will they continue selling what they're selling, but at cheaper prices? will they just switch to robberies, hooking, or selling some other vice like weapons? or are they going to apply to straight jobs that pay 8/hr? obviously not the third choice, so one can only hope that they go with the first option. cuz they're not going to go away without a violent fight

#1
So your saying we should continue to keep drugs illegal because the gangs in Mexico and South America would no longer have an income? I'm not sure I agree with your principles. @Corey, Just watched your video- It's too bad that kind of information isn't infiltrating the general public more.. Or maybe that guy and Ron Paul should just completely take over for Obama and his entire administration until our debt is secure.. It almost sounds like their are too many cooks in the kitchen sometimes.. Someone needs to take control and get this shit figured out!See More

#2
um, no i didn't say that. anyhere. i was pointing out that the transition's going to be violent so we should be preparing and anticipating it.

Corey Wright
I guess my point is more that it's extremely violent right now, and I really can't see it getting a whole lot worse if you cut off all of their future income streams. They can't print money, and I'm assuming, probably more than any other business, they rely on their next dollar coming in to sustain their operations, meaning that they probably need more money coming in to be able to sustain any kind of fight. You also have to understand that it is for the enormous potential profits that accompany a black market that people will risk their lives. If you remove that potential, then what do they have to fight for? Also, to the best of my knowledge, alcohol prohibition was similarly violent (given the weaponry of the times), and the transition period away from that wasn't as bad as you're describing.See More

Corey Wright ‎
@Katie, that's the idea! I'm doing my damnedest to educate as many folks as possible for that very reason. I need as much help as I can get!

Corey Wright
Here is an excellent summation of the arguments, with a whole lot of really conclusive citations containing answers to the minutia:

Why Legalize Now?
http://mises.org/daily/5427/Why-Legalize-Nowu

Person #3
Herman Cain

Corey Wright
Cain is a bit too Bush, McCain, Boehner, and Cheney-esque for my tastes, although he may understand economics more than those tards (even though he believes in a corporate tax rate). Gary Johnson or Ronny for me.

#3
Listen to Herman Cain and you will be sold trust me

Corey Wright
http://www.ontheissues.org/herman_cain.htm

How can anyone like the FairTax and think that China's economic growth is a national security threat?

#3
Unfortunately that website isn't quite accurate

#4
you're kidding, right? it's published on the internet -- it must be true

Corey Wright
So he didn't write this?

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=293661

I agree with his sentiment that we want to outgrow them, and about doing away with capital gains taxes and lowering corporate taxes (IMO completely), but I really don't find ...these mildly xenophobic comments to be the best or most ethical way to convince people towards his point of view.

How about this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jg9fesMAvwA

The fair tax is an absolute joke, you guys. How anyone who considers themselves conservatives could understand it and subsequently endorse it is beyond me. Here's a good perspective, I can provide more info on it if need be.

http://mises.org/daily/1814

---That one is still ongoing, I'll update it if anyone has the balls to take me on. Here's another:

Person #1
The first part is normal Friedman jargon but the very beginning and ending is pretty awesome....
The Start-Up of You
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/13/opinion/13friedman.html?_r=2&hp
This is not your parents' job market. Workers need to be able to invent, adapt and reinvent their jobs every day.

Corey Wright
While he's right to a certain extent, I think that he's kind of missing the underlying problem. It's a lack of jobs that's creating the massive competition and employee uncertainty, we're not in some kind of new economy or something like that. It's just his attempt to explain the cognitive dissonance (Z, if you see this, TWICE IN ONE DAY!!!) he and other economic illiterates feel when an economy progresses in some terms (tech, most specifically), yet because of the rampant capital depletion that has taken place during our various business cycles and massive inflation, peoples' standards of living regress. Meaning, they have to be even more productive than they otherwise would in order to make up for the destruction of capital stock and various barriers of employment brought on by government policy.

I could be completely misconstruing his point, but it sounds like he's implying that this is all a natural occurrence and, by extension, excusing the reasons we got here.

Person #2
Corey, I couldn't disagree with you more, and I also think you're misconstruing his point. When recessions occur, and we look at historic trends in post-recession eras, the underlying issue is businesses tend to learn to do more with less. that is what's occuring now. with the evolution of technology, and the fear of an uncertain market, there are fewer jobs because people are afraid to waste money on employees to do work that can be added to a current employee's work load. the scariest part of these historic trends is the failure for unemployment to rebound since businesses get comfortable asking more of their employees and relying on techonology that is cheaper in the long run. also, Friedman may be a whiney liberal at time, but he's not an economic illiterate. if you really believe that, read "The Lexus and the Olive Tree," then slap yourself in the face.

Corey Wright
Alright, I think I might have been unclear. I am saying that what Friedman is describing is a set of symptoms for an underlying disorder. I call him an economic illiterate, and mean the shit out of it, because he doesn't understand what is very well explained and expounded upon in this article:

http://mises.org/daily/4890

This quote from Say in that article is very relevant to your argument:

"And vice versa, whenever, by reasons of the blunders of a nation or its government, production is stationary, or does not keep pace with consumption, the demand generally declines, the value of the product is less than the charges of its production; no productive exertion is rewarded; profits and wages decrease; the employment of capital becomes less advantageous and more hazardous; *it is consumed piecemeal, not through extravagance, but through necessity*, and because the sources of capital have dried up."

See, what you and Friedman are referring to is business's posture of caution in the short and long-runs because of uncertainty, as opposed to posturing for robust long-term growth and its effects on labor markets. What I think Friedman is ignorant of, is the cause of all of this. I suggest you read that article, all of his citations, and this next article, and you will know far more about the global economy than Friedman ever will. It's pretty handy for investment purposes as well. Cheers.

http://mises.org/daily/4896/Hoover-Bush-and-Great-Depressions

Person #2
I don't think Friedman is ignornant of it so much as he chose not to focus his piece on it.

that being said, don't slap yourself in the face, as you seem like a reasonable guy, and these two articles are fascinating.

Corey Wright
Yeah, I guess I came off a little strong. It was just the tenor of the article came off like he felt the situation was natural and that an economy and its policy can persist in the manner ours has in recent history. A concept which I couldn't disagree with more, and I think kind of sets people up for a big surprise when the dollar crisis hits.

That and I'm not a fan of his other work, especially his endorsement of and contributions to the insanity of the Green movement, but that's neither here nor there. I'm glad you liked those articles, that website is the shit. The most free, scholarly material anywhere on the web by a long shot.

#2
the insanity of the green movement? hahaha. oil won't last forever, Corey.

Corey Wright
It's mostly that he, and the vast majority of the Greens are varying degrees of socialist, communist, and fascist. It's the means I disagree with, not necessarily the ends (if they truly are benefiting the environment). Here's a pretty good summation of my view, more information available if requested.

http://mises.org/daily/3930

#2
do you even know what socialists, communists, or fascists are? you seem to lump them all together. and I'm sorry, but recognizing that an economy that focuses solely on quarterly reports as opposed to long-term growth and sustainability requires a government that can look at the bigger picture and subsidize meaningful research to one day create an industry that provides renewable energy that does not adversely affect the environment is not that radical, Corey. and to just jump the Republican talkings points about communists, socialists, and fascists is, with all due respect, cutting at your credibility.

Corey Wright
Maybe I should have specified that I was referring to the economic definitions of fascism (the private ownership and operation, but government regulation and taxation of business firms) and communism (the government ownership, operation and regulation of firms), not the Hitler or Stalin contexts that accompany the terms and, I agree, misrepresent my point. But you just brought up some huge topics, and I'm about debated-out for the day haha, so I'll provide some reading for you in the meantime.

On "oil won't last forever"

http://mises.org/daily/3886

These will be in reference to this general point: "recognizing that an economy that focuses solely on quarterly reports as opposed to long-term growth and sustainability requires a government that can look at the bigger picture and subsidize meaningful research to one day create an industry that provides renewable energy that does not adversely affect the environment"

https://www.mises.org/rothbard/science.asp

http://mises.org/rothbard/lawproperty.pdf

http://mises.org/daily/3473

http://mises.org/daily/2795

https://mises.org/daily/5016/media.aspx?action=author&ID=288

https://www.mises.org/daily/4673

I could go on. My gripes are mostly economics-based, and are NOT based on the "fuck the environment, let's pollute as much as possible" argument. If you think that, you need to read that privatizing climate policy article again.

P.S. I'm not a Republican

#2
these are terrible articles. sorry. nothing scholarly about them.

Person #1...sorry to poison your wall. Corey, you haven't convinced me that you don't vote Republican.

Corey Wright
Lol. As far as I knew, scholarly meant properly cited and concerned with academic learning and research. Which those are, so...

I have voted for Republicans, but I've also voted for Democrats and Libertarians. I don't get into the Red vs. Blue game, the ones that end up in positions of power get more similar every election. I just focus on sound economic policy and maximization of freedom, which isn't helped by declaring oneself a member of one party or another.

#1
alright gentleman... good to see a nice discussion on my wall... I read through all of your comments and the first article that Corey posted... so basically all the article said was yadda yadda production is key not consumption... But what are we to produce and how are we to pay for labor costs... I think that is where that article might be in line with Friedman... due to automation not everything has to be produced by humans and due to the fact that we, the US economy, have in many ways (by no means all) moved away from production of material consumer products, the evolution of what it is that our economy produces by in large is dependent upon an individuals ability to create and recreate the output of his/her production. Compared to 100 and even 50 years ago, an individual didn't really have the capacity to produce on a large scale, it truly required an immense investment in PPE and labor, today however that is not the always the case. I think that is absolutely notable. I can go out there and create a multi-billion dollar company, with no plant, minimal property and equipment and fewer laborers per $ of revenue than has even been previously experienced. Alright I have to get back to work.... those were some of my initial thoughts and what turned me onto the article in the first place...

I think the fewer laborers per $ of revenue too is a huge factor in unemployment....

f it took 1,000 employees to create a $10 billion dollar company $50 years ago, it may only take 150 employees to create the same size company. Has production or output changed, no, but the correlation between that and employment certainly has.

dammit this totally distracted me.... "Hoffman adds: "You can't just say, 'I have a college degree, I have a right to a job, now someone else should figure out how to hire and train me.' " You have to know which industries are working and what is happening inside them and then "find a way to add value in a way no one else can. For entrepreneurs it's differentiate or die — that now goes for all of us."".... this is exactly in line with production... what does one produce... it is no longer directly given to a person from above but rather the responsibility has been transfered much more to the individual level... it is still production though....

Corey Wright
Wow sorry, I put this off a little bit and completely forgot about it. But my response to everything you just said is extremely simple. Think about what you're saying about how much more productive everybody is than 50 years ago. Then think about how much more productive a person is with a horse-drawn plow than with his bare hands, then think of how much more productive a steamboat is than a sailboat, etc. etc. I would argue that you could take any period of time in the progression of human history and try to make your points, but the fact is, supply precedes demand. Demand always exists, everybody would like a greater standard of living, but not everybody is productive enough (obviously there are exceptions on both sides of the aisle) to be able to warrant the purchasing power to achieve it. When they are more productive (through experience, yes, but primarily through capital investment), they then have the ability to command more goods, in other words, demand.

I'm just saying the cutthroat nature of the business world is due more to a lack of jobs than structural differences in the economy. Is the dynamic different with the new technology and communication? Absolutely, but I would argue it has progressed just as quickly, if not more so, in history previous to computers (as in, the difference in standard of living between life without factories vs. life with factories being greater than the difference in SoL between life without computers vs. life with computers). That and there's still people with a high level of demand for food in Africa on one side of the spectrum, and I don't think I speak out of turn when I say that if anyone had the ability to demand their own Porsche that they wouldn't turn it down.

And the ability to go public in today's stock market and get the kind of valuations that some IPOs get is just insane, and is a product of shit-ass monetary policy, among other things.

PWNAGE

Variable · Jul 27, 2011, 05:56 AM

One thing is for sure. Herman Cain is so fucking stupid, that he makes George W. Bush look like Sir Issac Newton.

tarkil · Jul 27, 2011, 08:45 AM

I didn't read yet, but that "Corey Wright' appears to be an asshole to me...

alvarezbassist17 · Jul 27, 2011, 09:14 AM

Yes, but an asshole with his head on straight

Oh, forgot about this one; this is a good one. Definitely starts off illustrating that whole asshole thing you were talking about, though haha.

Person #1
FUCK corporate tax breaks!
Corporate Tax Holiday in Debt Ceiling Deal: Where's the Uproar?
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/holiday-in-scambodia-20110720

Corey Wright
Fuck corporate double-taxation.

Corey Wright
I think you owe yourself a little economic education. These are a good start.

http://mises.org/daily/2061

http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae13_1_5.pdf

Person #2
yeah #1 are you stupid! why cant you be educated? maybe if im a little more condescending youll finally learn how to stop being a dumbass! (insert random links from random organization here)

Corey Wright
Point well taken; I apologize for my attitude. It's just ludicrous to me that people can on one hand share the opinion of that author and on the other, wonder why unemployment won't go under 9%. The point is, the poor don't necessarily benefit from having more money; it's the lowering of prices of consumption goods that benefits everybody the most and equalizes the poor and rich more than any wealth redistribution program could. This lowering of prices does not occur when you inflate the money supply and inhibit capital investment by corporate entities. I'm sorry if that sounded condescending, but i'm just trying to be very clear and non-partisan (i'm not saying subsidize corporations like many Republicans, I'm a Libertarian).

#2
thats all fine and dandy but there no such thing as a wealth redistribution plan and nobody is arguing for one so you can take your straw man down now. thanks.

Person #3
‎"but i'm just trying to be very clear and non-partisan (i'm not saying subsidize corporations like many Republicans, I'm a Libertarian)" First, the word partisan just means support of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea. So you are, in fact, partisan as you are a self-proclaimed Libertarian. Second, one of the links you posted was an excerpt from a book written by an anarcho-capitalist political philosopher and professor at an Austrian school of economics. Admittedly, I do not know much about economics but I do know a little something about philosophy and it is this: a philosophical argument is founded upon a premise that is either a priori (knowledge that is independent of experience, ie logic and math principles) or a posteriori (knowledge that is dependent upon experience). Unless Austrian economics is legitimately founded upon a priori principles, it can and will be debated fervently among philosophers and economists alike. There is very little room for dogmatism in philosophy. Naturally, one cannot avoid dogmatism any academic field, but of all academic fields, a true philosopher understands by the nature of her very work that she is all but infallible. Of course economics (specifically the "austrian" model) makes use of math principles, but what is truly at it's foundation? In other words, upon what premise does the theory of Austrian economics lie? It seems to me that it is not math-based and even if it were, there is an assumption that it can or should be. How is this assumption justified when economic theories rely on human behavior? As far as we currently understand it, human behavior is not math based. Third, your second link was a scholarly article that was once again, produced by the Journal of Austrian Economics. Interestingly enough, having only read the abstract, I have gleaned insight that you apparently overlooked: "On balance, economists seem still more prone to accept that taxing proﬁts does not affect corporations' outcomes." This is explicitly stating that the article is challenging the majority view of economists. My point? You made it clear that the view posited by the article of this author (and those who agree with it are) in need of an economic education, yet according to the scholarly article in the link you posted for that purpose states that the argument therein was intended to argue against the majority view. Very curious indeed. Finally, I'd like to say that most people would appreciate and respect that you summarize a 20 page scholarly article (which boasts to challenge the majority opinion) in your own words rather than copy and paste the link like it's some kind of information currency unrivaled by any other that only a fool wouldn't take at face value.

#1
In May, when Fortune magazine released this year's list of America's top 500 companies, its editors wrote, "The Fortune 500 generated nearly $10.8 trillion in total revenues last year, up 10.5%. Total profits soared 81%. But guess who didn't benefit much from this giant wave of cash? Millions of U.S. workers stuck mired in a stagnant job market... we've rarely seen such a stark gulf between the fortunes of the 500 and those of ordinary Americans."

if you don't see a problem w/ that, then i can't help u understand...

Corey Wright
Alright, a lot of topics to address here.

First, #2. What straw man? First off, I don't think I've imagined the quotes about people "not paying their fair share" when, the fact is, we already have a progressive income tax. Clearly it's not as progressive as some would like, but it already is progressive, meaning people at the higher level of income are paying a higher percentage of their income than someone at the lower level. Also, even if we had an equal percentage of earners' incomes taken across the board, 10, 20, 50% of $500,000 per year is still paying in a whole lot more than the same percentage of $50,000 per year. Secondly, would you care to define Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, welfare, ethanol subsidies, bailouts, government-guaranteed student loans and Federal Pell Grants, government-guaranteed mortgages, government-privileged military contracts (not 100%, because obviously the federal government is authorized to provide for national defense, but I'm talking about the lots and lots of $$ that could be cut), etc? As far as I understand it, these programs remove wealth forcibly from one group, through taxation, and then distribute it to another as defined by their specific nature, in short, wealth redistribution.

Second, #3. I wanted to start off by saying that I appreciate you taking the time to write all that, and did also want to note that I did apologize for my previous attitude, but was unaware at the time that anyone would care what I said, much less try to debate me, hence my marked lack of effort. I'll try to make up for it now since I have a little time.

Okay, first, you're right about the partisan thing; I was merely using it in reference to the Republican vs. Democrat, Red vs. Blue sense that is much more prevalent in today's debates. It was a poor attempt at shorthand. Also (this is really off-topic, but I didn't want to leave it unaddressed), yes, if you take Austrian economic reasoning to its logical ends, it purports a state-free society based upon the enforcement of contract rights, property rights and the Libertarian non-aggression principle. However, I, personally call myself Libertarian (which is kind of a loose term, but it's often used in this context) because I'm willing to live with a limited state whose powers are limited to the enforcement of contract rights, property rights and the Libertarian non-aggression principle.

Next, I find it very interesting that you bring up a priori and a posteriori reasoning, as it is Austrian economics that lays claim to being the only major school that professes to base its reasoning in a priori. The main idea of the School is to approach economics from that very perspective: deducing all of its other theories from the axiom that "humans act." While they do engage in a posteriori reasoning at times, it is not in deducing theory; rather it is to point out that events ensued in the way that Austrian reasoning had predicted. It is in the prediction phase of economics where Austrians and mainstream economists disagree, as the mainstream economists use models based on empirical analysis and a posteriori reasoning to make their predictions, which, as you pointed out relies on human behavior. This is about as deep as my knowledge gets relating to philosophy, so if you don't mind, rather than potentially misstating principles, I'll post some links with some further reading on this topic.

Mises's Apriorism Against Relativism in Economics
By Thorstein Polleit
http://mises.org/daily/2944

This is a basic expansion on my last paragraph, illustrating the difference between the empiricist economists and the Austrians from the point of view of philosophy. It is based on Ludwig von Mises' magnum opus, Human Action, a wiki article providing more information on the book and its content is at this link:

http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Human_Action

And here is a link to the entire book in PDF format, although it's clearly only for those interested at 950 pages:

http://mises.org/Books/HumanActionScholars.pdf

I hope those clear the philosophical issues up for you, and am willing to provide further summarization or explanation if I was unclear.

To your third point, I'm slightly unclear. Are you saying that because Austrian economics is not the mainstream view, that it is rendered invalid? Or that I should not have expected anyone to read it or take it to heart without further explaining myself? Or do you think that the abstract contradicted the point I was trying to make? If it is the latter: the author of that article goes on further to refute the view pointed out in the abstract.

Finally, as I said before, I apologized for the attitude, as I didn't believe that much of a genuine, intellectual discussion was going to stem from something that started off with "FUCK corporate tax breaks!" I was wrong, my response had a childish air, and hope my latest effort offers some form of recompense.

Okay, #1. That really is a huge issue you brought up right there, and I absolutely agree that it's a problem, there is definitely no doubt. I just differ greatly from the opinion that corporations and their behavior, their tax breaks or what have you are to blame for the unemployment. The point of that first article that I posted was to show that paying more in taxes doesn't help anything; it just puts resources in places that they might not have gone through voluntary action, and, in this case, heavily influences behavior of investment and employment. So from this view, the "tax holiday" is a stupid idea because it promotes a type of behavior that doesn't help anything in the long run, but it is because of the high tax rates and immense regulations that corporations are fleeing the United States, begging for these dumb little tax holidays and their like with which they can use fancy accounting to manipulate, or sitting on their hands, and loads of cash, out of fear.

There are actually many concrete reasons behind corporations and banks behaving this way, and they are all caused by consequences of government action. The first is that, in general, everyone is recovering from a massive business cycle, the housing bubble, which started after the economy had barely had time to recover from the tech bubble. Both of these bubbles, and the business cycle in general, has at their root causes a general inflation in the money supply that can only be perpetuated by a central bank or other monetary authority, and fiscal policy can lead certain resources into "bubbles." This is all illustrated in this ever-expanding wiki on financial crises throughout history, found here:

http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Financial_crisis

Specifically, the housing bubble:

http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Great_Recession

Specifically, the "dot-com" bubble

http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble

Another primary reason why corporations are sitting on cash and not hiring is a phenomenon called "regime uncertainty." I think the principle pretty much explains itself in this quote from noted Democrat and Obama-supporter, Steve Wynn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Wynn_%28entrepreneur%29):

"I'm afraid to do anything in the current political environment in the United States. You watch television and see what's going on, on this debt ceiling issue. And what I consider to be a total lack of leadership from the President and nothing's going to get fixed until the President himself steps up and wrangles both parties in Congress. But everybody is so political, so focused on holding their job for the next year that the discussion in Washington is nauseating. And I'm saying it bluntly, that this administration is the greatest wet blanket to business, and progress and job creation in my lifetime. And I can prove it and I could spend the next 3 hours giving you examples of all of us in this market place that are frightened to death about all the new regulations, our healthcare costs escalate, regulations coming from left and right. A President that seems — that keeps using that word redistribution. Well, my customers and the companies that provide the vitality for the hospitality and restaurant industry, in the United States of America, they are frightened of this administration. And it makes you slow down and not invest your money. Everybody complains about how much money is on the side in America. You bet. And until we change the tempo and the conversation from Washington, it's not going to change. And those of us who have business opportunities and the capital to do it are going to sit in fear of the President. And a lot of people don't want to say that. They'll say, "Oh God, don't be attacking Obama." Well, this is Obama's deal, and it's Obama that's responsible for this fear in America. The guy keeps making speeches about redistribution, and maybe we ought to do something to businesses that don't invest or holding too much money. We haven't heard that kind of talk except from pure socialists. Everybody's afraid of the government, and there's no need soft peddling it, it's the truth. It is the truth. And that's true of Democratic businessmen and Republican businessmen, and I am a Democratic businessman and I support Harry Reid. I support Democrats and Republicans. And I'm telling you that the business community in this country is frightened to death of the weird political philosophy of the President of the United States. And until he's gone, everybody's going to be sitting on their thumbs."

http://uselectionnews.org/casino-mogul-and-democrat-wants-the-president-out/854536/

Here is the more concise, Austrian definition of regime uncertainty:

http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Regime_uncertainty

The point is, I could see how you could blame the behavior of the business on the businesses themselves if there weren't all of these other government-perpetuated problems throughout the economy, but I think it's demonstrable that the case is actually that they are either recovering, scared or both and am prepared to continue showing that.

Corey Wright
Oh and I forgot to offer explanation about the reason that central banking is to blame for the business cycles. It's based on the Austrian Business Cycle Theory, which Freidrich A. Hayek won a Nobel Prize for in 1974, but has been largely ignored by the mainstream despite the award. Since I've been plenty windy, I'll just post a link to the explanation if you're curious.

http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Austrian_Business_Cycle_Theory

tarkil · Jul 27, 2011, 09:18 AM

I'll read this later too, but in the meantime, interesting drawings :

http://www.wtfnoway.com/

alvarezbassist17 · Jul 28, 2011, 04:33 AM

I posted that on my FB, totally awesome.

Anyways, more uber pwnage:

Person #1
Hmmmmm...."The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure" - Barack Obama (March 16th, 2006)

Haha, oh wow, the rest of the quote is even more damning: "Leadership means that 'the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit."

Corey Wright

dude something's gotta be up when even Democrats are saying stuff like this:

From Steve Wynn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Wynn_%28entrepreneur%29):

http://uselectionnews.org/casino-mogul-and-democrat-wants-the-president-out/854536/
**big long quote i already posted earlier**

Person #2
@Corey Wright ,,, No. Who is talking about redistribution? Also, I don't buy this business sitting on the sidelines because of Obama thing. It makes no sense. Buisness is reluctant to invest because of what is happening in congress right now but all that republicans have been able to come up with is stop giving health care and money to poor people and old people. We do need to do that. We can't afford our "entitlement programs" (I hate that term because it has a bad connotation and is a barrier to people thinking about what those programs really are).

Corey Wright

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/07/obama-opposes-short-term-debt-deal-from-boehner/1?csp=34news

Okay, so are you just saying that business is responding to a general air of uncertainty because of the actions of Cong...ress? I'd say it's more specific, that they are uncertain whether new regulations are coming down the line, whether the dollars they hold will be worth anything, and yes, whether their wealth will be redistributed. Those all seem like a lot more tangible reasons to forestall investment to me.

Person #2

The fact is we have several choices. The tea party choice is that we just cut entitlement. I think that is morally horrific but if it is what the people want so be it. Old people will vote out all of Washington if we do it though so I doubt that it will happen. Another choice is that we can just raise revenues to try to sustain the current system. Nobody wants that. Bad idea. We could reform our health care system to make it more European. This would give everybody basic medical services but people in need of specialists, people with rare diseases, and people in need of end of life care would be out of luck. I actually find this vastly preferable. We give people good basic care and make them comfortable at the end. Healthcare becomes affordable and the vast majority of us are comfortable. Last, we could do some combination of these by reforming or cutting social programs and raising revenue. This is what Obama wants. Frankly, I find it to be the only sensible option currently on the table. However, the introduction of the tea party to congress has pushed us to the point where we will find out exactly what sort of government people want. Will we gut our social support systems with cuts only or will we pursue a balanced approach? Frankly, I think the best way to reduce the burden on social welfare programs and cut costs is to fix education. That way we significantly reduce prison costs and we also increase the number of people in the markets who have the potential to be innovators. However, that is a different debate. I just wanted to address the point about redistribution. Nobody is asking to redistribute wealth. Taxes on the super wealthy do not equal redistribution. That is a bunch of nonsense. Ask the French what redistribution means. I also wanted to address the point that Obama is stifling growth. Absolutely not. This debate is stifling growth. The fact that our politicians are insane enough to take us to the brink of a potential default certainly stifles growth. So here we are at a turning point and we will see what happens.

Corey Wright
Alright, at the risk, but not the intention, of sounding condescending, you're extremely off in your points; to me, demonstrating a profound lack of understanding of economics. Rather than go on a long tirade, I'll just post some links that I think might send you in a better direction. Warning: they will not be partisan towards republican or democrat, merely towards free markets and hence, sound economic policy.

This is pretty huge, but it is a clear illustration of the problem with health care, and its solutions:

The Real Right to Medical Care versus Socialized Medicine
by George Reisman
http://mises.org/daily/3613

On Education: I don't know how you can really call our public education system and its results laudable in any way, shape or form, when they aren't educating kids better, and their cost goes nowhere but up over time. Here are a few articles, the first dealing with the primary education system, the latter two dealing with higher education.

Enterprising Education: Doing Away with the Public School System
by Andrew Young and Walter Block
http://mises.org/daily/2216/media.aspx?action=author&ID=731

Competition and Higher Education
by Hans Sennholz
http://mises.org/daily/1159

The Bubble in For-Profit Schooling
by Aaron Smith
http://mises.org/daily/4263

On Social Security: if it's not fairly clear by now how absolutely beyond broke SS is, this first article may help. The second article shows how unnecessary it is in the first place.

The Myth of the Social Security "Trust Fund"
By Robert P. Murphy
http://mises.org/daily/4528

What If Social Security Were Completely Scrapped?
By D.W. McKenzie
http://mises.org/daily/2586

On Medicare: it's a very similar story to Social Security, absolutely broke. The first article about this has to do with the programs underlying problems, the second with a mechanism for eliminating Medicare and Social Security.

The Trouble With Medicare
By Hans Sennholz
http://mises.org/daily/579

How to Eliminate Social Security and Medicare
By George Reisman
http://mises.org/daily/5191

On politicians taking us irresponsibly close to "default:" I agree that they have indeed behaved completely irresponsibly, but to say that we will be forced to default without raising the debt ceiling is a total canard, as shown by this guy:

Austrian Economist, Robert Murphy on the Debt Ceiling
Austrian Economist, Robert Murphy on the Debt Ceiling

On education reducing prison costs: I think that is a rather dubious claim. It would be far and away more effective to legalize all drugs. Here's a catch-all article dealing with the whole kit and caboodle:

Why Legalize Now?
By Mark Thornton
http://mises.org/daily/5427/Why-Legalize-Nowu

On taxing the wealthy: in my view, all taxation is wealth redistribution. I don't know where your definition comes from, but mine is the coerced removal of property from one person, and its giving to another. So by that definition, the vast majority of the government's programs do just that. A little side note: we already have a progressive income tax, and you want it to be more progressive? Paying in 10, 20, 50% of $500,000/year is still paying in a much greater amount than the same percentage of $50,000. In addition, it will not have the effects you're looking to achieve, anyways.

Soak-the-Rich Taxes: Fail!
By Robert P. Murphy
http://mises.org/daily/4820

For Society To Thrive, The Rich Must Be Left Alone
By George Reisman
http://mises.org/daily/2073

Alright, that's about enough for me, for the moment. I highly encourage you to read everything that I posted, as, and I mean this in the absolutely nicest way I possibly can (and really, if I was trying to be an asshole, I wouldn't have just spent an hour doing this for a stranger), it will help you a whole lot with your economic ignorance. It does all sound really radical at first, but it really just makes so much more sense than any other paradigm, and is based on FREEDOM and not allowing government to quash the spontaneous elegance of the free market.

If anything I've said has been unclear or any arguments left unaddressed, just let me know. Your time is appreciated.

Final side note: I voted for Kerry in '04. So we can all transcend modern-day-American Liberalism into Classical Liberalism; it is indeed possible.

Person #2 - NINE MINUTES after that gigantic post
I spent four years arguing with #1's crazy libertarian ideologies and he can probably tell you what I would say to anything youd say. I will tell you that I would be very surprised if you could tell me what was happening in the schools beyond "teachers union bad!" Anyways, I am going to end this conversation now. A heated discussion with somebody I will probably never meet over a mutual friend's post is not something I am terribly interested in. Good luck to you.

Corey Wright
lol wow. True to liberal form for certain. Not reading anything I took the time to post, yet still forming an opinion on it. Your points are all addressed in those articles, and they go quite a bit beyond "teachers union bad!" And it doesn't matter what you know or what you don't, if you don't understand that government policy (not specific policies, just leaving it to government policy in general) is to blame for the problems in education, health care, the economy, the environment, etc, then you are an economic illiterate beyond the shadow of a doubt. The Austrian economists are the ones who have predicted the failure of these policies time and time again, as well as predicted financial bubbles throughout history, and explained their specific causes. They will continue to do so, and you can have all the fun you want scratching your head, trying to find a Republican or Tea-Partier to blame. If you're not willing to even take a glance at the resounding refutation of your stances, then I am also unwilling to continue this conversation. Cheers.

Person #2
I never said I wasn't going to read them. You just don't seem interested in reading the cave painting of us neandertholic liberals. Education is what I have my masters in dude. Don't go there with me.

So smug

Corey Wright
Yeah, there was clearly no smugness or biased assumptions ("crazy libertarian ideologies," "teachers union bad!") in your post. Give me a break. Dude, I'm constantly exposed to liberal talking points, I mean I watch the news, read the papers, and am generally very well informed about policy prescriptions across the political spectrum. It's not that I am unwilling to listen, I just, like #1, already have a pretty good idea where discussion will lead, and know that the views expounded upon in my postings are not known or understood by the vast majority of people (liberal or conservative), otherwise America wouldn't be in the mess that it's in.

Look, all it took me was an hour to conjure up hundreds of pages of scholarly material, with citation links to thousands more pages. And it was free. I've learned more about history, public policy and economics from that single website than I did in my entire middle, high school, lib ed requirements in college, and a whole mess of my business classes. For free. Education, given the internet and all of these free resources, should be able to adapt to a new, far cheaper paradigm. This WILL NOT HAPPEN under a government regime, for efficiency is not in their interests. Whatever, it's all in those articles. Call me smug if you want, but I think it'd be worse to sugarcoat my views and/or avoid educating people on the true root of the problem and your judgment after giving that gigantic post roughly 9 minutes chapped my ass a bit.

Person #2
I fully acknowledge being a jackass in this discussion. That is why I am ending it.

LOL

Make_shift Destiny · Jul 28, 2011, 09:19 AM

Is it weird that I'm black and I have a small penis?

tarkil · Jul 28, 2011, 10:25 AM

tarkil · Aug 05, 2011, 12:39 PM

@Corey : Your views on this ?

http://www.alternet.org/economy/151754/plutocracy%3A_if_corporations_and_the_rich_paid_1960s-level_taxes%2C_the_debt_would_vanish/