7 ms·

This is a completely backwards view of the economy. There is a reason there are rice futures: those that depend on the price of rice, which is people that _sel

by javert 13y ago

This is a completely backwards view of the economy. There is a reason there are rice futures: those that depend on the price of rice, which is people that _sell_ rice, can hedge. There is a reason India is constantly running out of onions: Online futures are illegal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onion_Futures_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onion_Futures_Act There is a reason we need to have a global economy for food production. Bad weather in one region? Import from elsewhere. (Same applies to all commodities and services.) The economy works quite well naturally, but for massive government invervention, such as what you are proposing, which would have massive unforseen consequences (such as improverishing people, which punishes the poor the most). By the way, were it not for abandoning the gold standard, the US would not be able to finance a perpetual state of war. (It would have to pick wars with terminal conditions and actually win them.) It would also be much harder to finance 1984.Net. The typical response to this is for me to get screamed at about how I am obviously wrong because all economists disagree with me and because it's just obvious. I don't think that's a legitimate response.

clienthunter 13y ago
Rice was an example that was palatable to both my lazy fingers and I hoped to those who may not have appreciated a jargon filled response. It does not detract from the clearly presented general case which you are more than encouraged to investigate, I have done my part in spelling it out for you. > but for massive government invervention, such as what you are proposing I am not proposing anything, I am merely describing. The issue at hand is not readily solved by the markets, which in this situation a) are in a state of risk aversion and b) possess very bad quality information that is difficult to reason about. This is classic market failure that is documented in places better than my mind - go forth and google. If you are so used to receiving that response that you describe it as "typical" then I would suggest that you are either quite the revolutionary thinker, or that you are, in fact, typically wrong. Which do you think it is?
- javert 13y ago
  > Rice was an example that was palatable to both my lazy fingers and I hoped to those who may not have appreciated a jargon filled response. It does not detract from the clearly presented general case which you are more than encouraged to investigate I am also using rice as a stand-in for the general case. > I am not proposing anything, I am merely describing. That's a meaningless distinction. Academic communists who supported Stalinism also claimed innocence when Stalinism resulted in the deaths of millions. I am not accusing you of anything on that scale, but I am saying that ideas have consequences. You are responsible for the consequences of the ideas you support and promulgate. > This is classic market failure Right, and I don't think markets are inherently failure-prone. If I drive my car into a light pole, is that a classic automobile failure? So I dispute the very terminology here. Case in point: The 2008 mortgage crisis was caused by a massively distorted market for mortgages and easy credit. The first was created by Barney Frank with Freddie and Fannie, the second by the Fed. Future generations will remember this as a "market failure" and use it to justify the existence of future incarnations of Freddie, Fannie and the Fed. > I would suggest that you are either quite the revolutionary thinker, or that you are, in fact, typically wrong. There is a third possibility, which is that lots and lots of people think like me.
  - clienthunter 13y ago
    > I am also using rice as a stand-in for the general case. The existence of futures, commoditised goods, integrated markets and all the rest have clearly not eliminated shocks of the type I describe. What's your point? > You are responsible for the consequences of the ideas you support and promulgate. Again, you appear to be having issues with the concept of description. What I explained is how things actually work, why they need solved, and how they are currently solved by intervention. There is no argument here. I could very easily describe your arguments, and why they're flawed, and in no way would that amount to my supporting or promulgating them. > I dispute the very terminology here Dispute the terminology all you like, it's just a name for the what I described, it has no bearing on the concepts which you have failed to address cogently at all. > There is a third possibility, which is that lots and lots of people think like me. I think you mean that lots and lots of people think like me, and I would ordinarily dispute that too.
aclevernickname 13y ago
> By the way, were it not for abandoning the gold standard, the US would not be able to finance a perpetual state of war. you're correct, but a few things: 1) the gold standard never fully went away; while we implemented Keynesian fiat money, we then pegged it to Oil production, hence the term "Petrodollar". It was a little amusing that we went to war in Iraq (under the WAR ON TERROR banner) immediately after Hussein switched to the Euro as the default currency. [1] Even in it's weakened state, the Petrodollar is still the main currency of choice. 2) The Gold Standard switch is the tip of the iceberg. We should be talking about the US Bankruptcy. Check out the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917 (specifically, the 1933 amendment) [2], and House Joint Resolution 192 of June 5th, 1933 [3]. Those two acts set up the perpetual state of war in the US, though some would say it happened when congress went sine die during the civil war. 3) Fiat money is _awesome_ in a world in bankruptcy. Since 1933, people/citizens are the source of all money. we live in a world of abundance now since the industrial revolution, and in the next 20 years, as machines take over all the old grunt-labor jobs, we're going to have a glut of people unable to do the jobs they were trained to do. under any resource-backed economy (gold, oil), this would be catastrophic. However, this is why we have institutions like the Bank of International Settlements in place, to post bonds and discharge debt for insolvent countries/corporations. Money is debt, as the Youtube video tells us. We're now in a world where a Promise to Pay (an IOU) is in fact the money itself [4]. In this world, everyone that has a "Sophisticated Investor" level of understanding of the game can act as their own BIS, effectively becoming another Carnegie, Rockefeller, Warburg, or Oppenheimer. I suspect you're a lewrockwell.com reader, or at least one who follows a more libertarian leaning (correct me if wrong). Back when I was championing the gold standard, I used to say a lot of the same things. Much of what they said was right, but was missing the massive caveat that it was only correct within the confines of HJR-192. Gold/Silver is only payable for private commerce outside the jurisdiction of Wickard v. Filburn [5] nowadays. Michael Badnarik, former Libertarian Presidential Candidate, teaches a common law class that explains many of these concepts, so that you can preserve and exercise those pre-1933 rights [6]. [1] http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,998512,00.html http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,998512,... [2] http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/95a http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/95a [3] http://www.focusoncommerce.net/index_htm_files/LAW%20-%20House%20Joint%20Resolution%20192.pdf http://www.focusoncommerce.net/index_htm_files/LAW%20-%20Hou... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negotiable_instrument http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negotiable_instrument [5] http://www.lawnix.com/cases/wickard-filburn.html http://www.lawnix.com/cases/wickard-filburn.html [6] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-a_yR1jzHY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-a_yR1jzHY
gnaritas 13y ago
> The economy works quite well naturally That's an ideological statement and an axiom of your belief system, it is not however reality nor something everyone agrees with. That's why people scream at you, you are being ideological but speaking as if it's a fact. Markets fail, they do not always work well naturally, and government is not always the problem.
- javert 13y ago
  My economic beliefs are based on observation of reality. I don't know how you want to define "ideological" and "axiom," but I would not call them either. Certainly, they are not "axioms." > Markets fail, they do not always work well naturally, and government is not always the problem. Markets always work well eventually, and physical force (which is typically weilded by governments) is the only thing that can arrest that process. In the short term, certainly, there can be market disruptions. There are all kinds of ways to deal with those so they don't have to be problematic.
  - gnaritas 13y ago
    > Markets always work well eventually That's a religious statement, not a factual one. Please open an economics textbooks and find the chapter on market failures. You are talking ideological nonsense, you are not describing reality. Edit: I checked your profile; you're quoting Ayn Rand; your mind is already fucked. I'm done with this conversation as it's impossible to reason with anyone who thinks highly of that insanity. The only thing Ayn Rand is a good starting point for is how to brainwash young minds with terrible writing and an idiotic philosophy. She's a joke.
    - javert 13y ago
      To be clear, Ayn Rand didn't write about economics. So, you can't take my economics views as representing her views. > your mind is already fucked. I'm done with this conversation as it's impossible to reason with anyone who thinks highly of that insanity. The only thing Ayn Rand is a good starting point for is how to brainwash young minds with terrible writing and an idiotic philosophy. She's a joke. That's completely untrue. I'm a very intelligent and very well-educated person, and I agree with Ayn Rand. And there are a lot of people like me. Ayn Rand's views are actually quite intuitively reasonable---and there is a lot of techincal philosophical work that has been done to show that they are true. (a) there is an objective reality (b) we can gain knowledge about it (c) we should act self-interestedly in the pursuit of happiness (d) we need freedom (in the classic liberal sense) to do that Which of these views causes you to automatically dismiss me out of hand? If you want to make a cogent criticism of Ayn Rand, I will tell you why I think it fails. > That's a religious statement, not a factual one It's not a religious statement. I realize that you are accusing me of believing certain things on faith, and I completely reject that. I am a scientist. I definitely suspect we probably disagree on what "always work well eventually" means, though, which I left undefined.

by javert 13y ago

clienthunter 13y ago

Rice was an example that was palatable to both my lazy fingers and I hoped to those who may not have appreciated a jargon filled response. It does not detract from the clearly presented general case which you are more than encouraged to investigate, I have done my part in spelling it out for you. > but for massive government invervention, such as what you are proposing I am not proposing anything, I am merely describing. The issue at hand is not readily solved by the markets, which in this situation a) are in a state of risk aversion and b) possess very bad quality information that is difficult to reason about. This is classic market failure that is documented in places better than my mind - go forth and google. If you are so used to receiving that response that you describe it as "typical" then I would suggest that you are either quite the revolutionary thinker, or that you are, in fact, typically wrong. Which do you think it is?

javert 13y ago
> Rice was an example that was palatable to both my lazy fingers and I hoped to those who may not have appreciated a jargon filled response. It does not detract from the clearly presented general case which you are more than encouraged to investigate I am also using rice as a stand-in for the general case. > I am not proposing anything, I am merely describing. That's a meaningless distinction. Academic communists who supported Stalinism also claimed innocence when Stalinism resulted in the deaths of millions. I am not accusing you of anything on that scale, but I am saying that ideas have consequences. You are responsible for the consequences of the ideas you support and promulgate. > This is classic market failure Right, and I don't think markets are inherently failure-prone. If I drive my car into a light pole, is that a classic automobile failure? So I dispute the very terminology here. Case in point: The 2008 mortgage crisis was caused by a massively distorted market for mortgages and easy credit. The first was created by Barney Frank with Freddie and Fannie, the second by the Fed. Future generations will remember this as a "market failure" and use it to justify the existence of future incarnations of Freddie, Fannie and the Fed. > I would suggest that you are either quite the revolutionary thinker, or that you are, in fact, typically wrong. There is a third possibility, which is that lots and lots of people think like me.
- clienthunter 13y ago
  > I am also using rice as a stand-in for the general case. The existence of futures, commoditised goods, integrated markets and all the rest have clearly not eliminated shocks of the type I describe. What's your point? > You are responsible for the consequences of the ideas you support and promulgate. Again, you appear to be having issues with the concept of description. What I explained is how things actually work, why they need solved, and how they are currently solved by intervention. There is no argument here. I could very easily describe your arguments, and why they're flawed, and in no way would that amount to my supporting or promulgating them. > I dispute the very terminology here Dispute the terminology all you like, it's just a name for the what I described, it has no bearing on the concepts which you have failed to address cogently at all. > There is a third possibility, which is that lots and lots of people think like me. I think you mean that lots and lots of people think like me, and I would ordinarily dispute that too.

aclevernickname 13y ago

> By the way, were it not for abandoning the gold standard, the US would not be able to finance a perpetual state of war. you're correct, but a few things: 1) the gold standard never fully went away; while we implemented Keynesian fiat money, we then pegged it to Oil production, hence the term "Petrodollar". It was a little amusing that we went to war in Iraq (under the WAR ON TERROR banner) immediately after Hussein switched to the Euro as the default currency. [1] Even in it's weakened state, the Petrodollar is still the main currency of choice. 2) The Gold Standard switch is the tip of the iceberg. We should be talking about the US Bankruptcy. Check out the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917 (specifically, the 1933 amendment) [2], and House Joint Resolution 192 of June 5th, 1933 [3]. Those two acts set up the perpetual state of war in the US, though some would say it happened when congress went sine die during the civil war. 3) Fiat money is _awesome_ in a world in bankruptcy. Since 1933, people/citizens are the source of all money. we live in a world of abundance now since the industrial revolution, and in the next 20 years, as machines take over all the old grunt-labor jobs, we're going to have a glut of people unable to do the jobs they were trained to do. under any resource-backed economy (gold, oil), this would be catastrophic. However, this is why we have institutions like the Bank of International Settlements in place, to post bonds and discharge debt for insolvent countries/corporations. Money is debt, as the Youtube video tells us. We're now in a world where a Promise to Pay (an IOU) is in fact the money itself [4]. In this world, everyone that has a "Sophisticated Investor" level of understanding of the game can act as their own BIS, effectively becoming another Carnegie, Rockefeller, Warburg, or Oppenheimer. I suspect you're a lewrockwell.com reader, or at least one who follows a more libertarian leaning (correct me if wrong). Back when I was championing the gold standard, I used to say a lot of the same things. Much of what they said was right, but was missing the massive caveat that it was only correct within the confines of HJR-192. Gold/Silver is only payable for private commerce outside the jurisdiction of Wickard v. Filburn [5] nowadays. Michael Badnarik, former Libertarian Presidential Candidate, teaches a common law class that explains many of these concepts, so that you can preserve and exercise those pre-1933 rights [6]. [1] http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,998512,00.html http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,998512,... [2] http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/95a http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/95a [3] http://www.focusoncommerce.net/index_htm_files/LAW%20-%20House%20Joint%20Resolution%20192.pdf http://www.focusoncommerce.net/index_htm_files/LAW%20-%20Hou... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negotiable_instrument http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negotiable_instrument [5] http://www.lawnix.com/cases/wickard-filburn.html http://www.lawnix.com/cases/wickard-filburn.html [6] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-a_yR1jzHY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-a_yR1jzHY

gnaritas 13y ago

> The economy works quite well naturally That's an ideological statement and an axiom of your belief system, it is not however reality nor something everyone agrees with. That's why people scream at you, you are being ideological but speaking as if it's a fact. Markets fail, they do not always work well naturally, and government is not always the problem.

javert 13y ago
My economic beliefs are based on observation of reality. I don't know how you want to define "ideological" and "axiom," but I would not call them either. Certainly, they are not "axioms." > Markets fail, they do not always work well naturally, and government is not always the problem. Markets always work well eventually, and physical force (which is typically weilded by governments) is the only thing that can arrest that process. In the short term, certainly, there can be market disruptions. There are all kinds of ways to deal with those so they don't have to be problematic.
- gnaritas 13y ago
  > Markets always work well eventually That's a religious statement, not a factual one. Please open an economics textbooks and find the chapter on market failures. You are talking ideological nonsense, you are not describing reality. Edit: I checked your profile; you're quoting Ayn Rand; your mind is already fucked. I'm done with this conversation as it's impossible to reason with anyone who thinks highly of that insanity. The only thing Ayn Rand is a good starting point for is how to brainwash young minds with terrible writing and an idiotic philosophy. She's a joke.
  - javert 13y ago
    To be clear, Ayn Rand didn't write about economics. So, you can't take my economics views as representing her views. > your mind is already fucked. I'm done with this conversation as it's impossible to reason with anyone who thinks highly of that insanity. The only thing Ayn Rand is a good starting point for is how to brainwash young minds with terrible writing and an idiotic philosophy. She's a joke. That's completely untrue. I'm a very intelligent and very well-educated person, and I agree with Ayn Rand. And there are a lot of people like me. Ayn Rand's views are actually quite intuitively reasonable---and there is a lot of techincal philosophical work that has been done to show that they are true. (a) there is an objective reality (b) we can gain knowledge about it (c) we should act self-interestedly in the pursuit of happiness (d) we need freedom (in the classic liberal sense) to do that Which of these views causes you to automatically dismiss me out of hand? If you want to make a cogent criticism of Ayn Rand, I will tell you why I think it fails. > That's a religious statement, not a factual one It's not a religious statement. I realize that you are accusing me of believing certain things on faith, and I completely reject that. I am a scientist. I definitely suspect we probably disagree on what "always work well eventually" means, though, which I left undefined.