gdp's Comments

Economic Thought : Inflating Prosperity

Wed, 22 Sep 2010 03:00:33 +0000

Government needs to spend in the private sector’s stead, and perhaps the Federal Reserve needs to fund said spending with new money.

I think you've been spending too much time around Kuehn.

Economic Thought : The Libertarian Love Affair with the Left?

Wed, 1 Sep 2010 02:27:26 +0000

Daniel,

Do you expect me to take this seriously after your "libertarians qua libertarians" speech? Must I quote it back for you, only replacing the nouns?

It's not surprising that you would accuse me of violating the same generalities that I said don't apply in the previous comment. It's simply another example of your inability (or refusal) to comprehend what I'm saying. In regards to locavores, that is not a political position. It is a preference that has nothing to do with politics. My desire to wear blue shirts over red shirts has nothing to do with my belief that people should be free - for instance. They are not at all related. This instance, in which we are talking about the use of government legislation to change social status, is very much a libertarian concern because, guess what? It involves direct government intervention. In that sense (because government is at the heart of this argument versus our locavore discussion where it's almost irrelevant), I can generalize about libertarian position this and liberal position that (especially when you fit the mold I set anyway). Do you see the difference? When government is important to a discussion, I can make generalizations about what certain political parties have to say whereas when government is not important to a discussion, it makes no sense to generalize (which is why I criticized you on your post). Glad that's cleared up.

Don't call me the naive one when all you can provide as evidence is vague pronouncements.

Disagree with me on the analysis. Go ahead. Tell me I've mischaracterized Affirmative Action or that liberals typically (yes, that is a generalization) endorse government policy to "reshuffle" or otherwise redesign social status. Is that incorrect? Is what I've said incorrect? If it is, prove it. But don't belittle my analysis because I don't provide enough evidence to appease your sensibilities. My statement regarding liberals and their position on affirmative action is reasonably accurate. So what? Your only objection is that it's a "vague pronouncement?" Big deal, Daniel. You're nitpicking.

Liberal support for the so called "Ground Zero Mosque" has been indistinguishable from libertarian support - and for a good reason: they both place primacy on underlying civil rights and liberties that are at stake in this situation.

I agree. I have absolutely no objection to the building of the "mosque." Where did you ever get the idea that I objected to people building places of worship (aside from your knowledge that I am an atheist)? I don't support it and I don't object to it. I don't care about it. I think it's RIDICULOUS that it's such a hot-button issue because it's absolutely a nonissue. Let them build it. What do I care? How is this a "garden variety conservative" stance?

Economic Thought : The Libertarian Love Affair with the Left?

Tue, 31 Aug 2010 23:25:58 +0000

Don't be so naive. The typical "progressive" or "liberal" position regarding such minorities is always to elevate them to a higher caste, socially speaking. Just because you might not support Affirmative Action doesn't vindicate the political party you associate with. The libertarian position is equality before the law. The liberal position is often to correct wrongs done in the past, which necessarily means inequality before the law.

Economic Thought : Economic Growth and the State

Fri, 27 Aug 2010 17:41:36 +0000

You also need to consider the outpouring of philosophical writings on the subject. Anarchy, as in the absence of institutionalized violence, did not come around as a political/philosophical movement largely until 19th century America. Time not only affords economic growth, but the flowering of ideas that are presently still very unheard of.

Economic Thought : What Did Krugman Mean?

Fri, 27 Aug 2010 01:42:38 +0000

And what's the problem with this? I would hold considerably less respect for other people if EVERYONE were as intellectually defunct as Paul Krugman. Thankfully, they aren't.

Economic Thought : What Did Krugman Mean?

Thu, 26 Aug 2010 20:30:03 +0000

I really don't know what to say at this point haha. You must be wearing BLINDERS to not see this.

Economic Thought : What Did Krugman Mean?

Thu, 26 Aug 2010 20:22:26 +0000

He drives us bonkers because otherwise intelligent people like yourself listen to him and give what he says authority because you think he has intellectual integrity. Jon got that exactly right. The problem is, he doesn't. The man is intellectually bankrupt. Not only can he not differentiate between Austrians and "liquidationists" (which would include Hoover according to him), but he has the audacity to condemn an entire school of economic thought - not due to rigorous analysis and study - but because he himself didn't think of it. And if Krugman didn't think of it, it must obviously be wrong. That's what we object to. We don't object to people disagreeing (insofar as we still debate and converse with you). We object to blatant and abject intellectual dishonesty and bankruptcy - especially when it's pointed at the Austrian school.

Economic Thought : What Did Krugman Mean?

Thu, 26 Aug 2010 18:45:50 +0000

The question is: If he is not knowledgeable enough on Austrian economics to judge whether it's "right" or "wrong," what other standard could he use to justifiably dismiss it? This is why Jonathan and I accuse Krugman of comparing it with his own worldview, and dismissing it because it clashes. Not because he knows something we don't.

Economic Thought : What Did Krugman Mean?

Thu, 26 Aug 2010 18:37:02 +0000

But he is!! How else could he make the claim that it's wrong if he's not knowledgeable enough on it?

Economic Thought : What Did Krugman Mean?

Thu, 26 Aug 2010 18:26:36 +0000

Daniel,

The difference with the Austrian school is not its incongruence, but its perceived inadequacy.

Oh stop trying to defend this guy. It's obvious that he hasn't made any serious attempt to debate Austrian ideas. He wrote one article riddled with nonsense 10 years ago, and has shied away from it since. Now, you're claiming that he's knowledgeable enough on the subject to dismiss it because it's inadequate??? It is at all possible that he's dismissing it because it fits the strawman of "liquidationism" that he so opposes? I don't dare accuse you of dismissing Austrian theories because of your political leanings, or your economic philosophies. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you actually STUDIED what you are dismissing, or at the very least have some passing familiarity with it. Can we really say the same thing about Paul Krugman, who is about as ignorant on Austrian economics as he is with neurosurgery?

Economic Thought : What Did Krugman Mean?

Thu, 26 Aug 2010 17:58:03 +0000

Note: You have still yet to explain why it is a fallacy.

Economic Thought : Further Notes on Capital Theory and Unemployment

Wed, 25 Aug 2010 17:57:31 +0000

Well said. Hopefully I can contribute more when I actually read PTC (as it is, my contributions are lost in the swirling vortex of Daniel's comment feed).

Economic Thought : Unemployment in the Hangover Theory

Wed, 25 Aug 2010 15:56:16 +0000

You reject Say's Law because it's wrong. To whom? According to what criterion? Say's Law is "wrong," not because its an obvious mistake (if so, I'm an obvious moron) but because you can't accept it while endorsing deficient demand theories. It's wrong because it doesn't work with what you already "know."

Economic Thought : The State and Violence

Wed, 25 Aug 2010 02:49:17 +0000

Jonathan, I'm with you on moral nihilism and amorality; really I am. I use the Rothbardian shorthand (peace - good; violence - bad) to make things easier to explain from a personal standpoint, but ultimately I can't argue that government is necessarily bad simply by virtue of its operation of deadly force. Not yet, anyway. One of my academic goals is to somehow bring ethics into the Austrian school on a praxeological basis. In some sense (I actually argued this at the University), we can't consider robbery to be immoral because the victim always has the option of non-compliance (which then renders compliance as voluntary). So I'm with you on that point. But even then, anarchy really is so much more practical. Listening to Bob Murphy's lecture of security really implanted that into my mind. The few tasks we delegate to the state can all be easily and much more efficiently handled privately. Anarchy is not only a normative concept of a society without coercion, but a utilitarian construct that moral nihilists can embrace.

Economic Thought : The State and Violence

Wed, 25 Aug 2010 00:38:56 +0000

Practical? It's never been practical to be an anarchist. But pragmatism has absolutely nothing to do with it. Anarchism is a normative philosophy that is not determined by positive phenomena. If I tell you that I think everyone should follow the Golden Rule, does the fact that people don't follow it give me good reason to abandon my normative position on behavior? Of course not. The existence of violence in society does not render the position (violence is bad) wrong. It really has nothing to do with it. Market forces imply voluntary trade. There is nothing voluntary about government. It's true - government did arise from human action - but so does murder. Does that make all manner of "action" suddenly "market forces?"

Economic Thought : Unemployment in the Hangover Theory

Tue, 24 Aug 2010 21:30:59 +0000

Daniel, 1. All the time. I offer specific explanations or theories and you consistently shoot them down because they don't conform with the Keynesian worldview. Say's Law, for instance. We've argued this numerous times and the only rebuttal that I hear from you has to do with Keynes and his "refutation." 2. That may be true, and I am the first to be glad you're familiarizing yourself with it - but just because I talk to you and comment on Keynesian blogs, does that mean I can dispense with the hard reading and call Keynesians silly? No. Edit: I need other reasons before I can call you silly. :P

Economic Thought : Unemployment in the Hangover Theory

Tue, 24 Aug 2010 20:54:56 +0000

Daniel, Why don't you perhaps: A) Judge Austrian economics on it's own merits (Not whether it meshes with your Keynesian literature) and B) Do additional reading? If you're trying to come off as if you already know the nuances of Austrian theory, and somehow the Keynesian paradigm is clearly on top - you would do well to introduce yourself to proper Austrian works (not that Garrison isn't - again we're all pleased you picked it up. It's just that reading directly from Mises or Rothbard is likely to be more rewarding.)

Economic Thought : Defining Employment

Tue, 24 Aug 2010 01:44:17 +0000

Jonathan,

Therefore, this definition would... rule out the inclusion of those living in autarky.

Nope. If I am growing tomatoes for my own consumption, my labor is applied towards the "purpose of satisfying any perceived desires," but I should still be considered unemployed according to the division of labor.

Economic Thought : Defining Employment

Mon, 23 Aug 2010 22:05:20 +0000

Jonathan, Then we are in total agreement. How unusual. ;) How do you propose we draw this line?

Economic Thought : Defining Employment

Mon, 23 Aug 2010 20:19:30 +0000

Will, I can tell you have some valuable insights to offer to this discussion, but I must ask you to be more clear in presenting them. After reading your two posts, I can barely say I am comprehending what you've written (and I've read a fair share of Austrian works on employment!). Be precise. Be concise. You are obviously in disagreement with Jonathan on the matter of employment, but where so and why? I can hardly make heads or tails of your analysis. Jonathan, I disagree with your analysis (and perhaps by extension De Soto's). Employment is a process by which we produce. Production without employment is impossible. Production, then, is simply a transformative process where we change unsatisfactory resources into more satisfactory resources. In the broadest sense, we call this action. Employment is the means by which we achieve this change in satisfaction. Just as it is impossible to increase one's wellbeing without action, so it is likewise impossible to do so without employment. In this broad view, everyone is always employed at all times. In the more precise and practical nomenclature, we define employment as a specific function of a complex economy built on the division of labor. As Will rightly pointed out earlier (as I have in another post), it is clearly possible to be employed by yourself and engage in autarkic labor. This should be considered employment for reasons I give in earlier paragraphs. As for the question of whether there will be involuntary unemployment in a free economy, the answer really depends on how strict your definition of employment is. If you define employment as a specific function of a market economy (working for wages for an employer, for instance), it is completely possible to have involuntary employment (for negligibly short periods of time). If you encompass the larger definition of employment, as any process that achieves your ends, we must all and at all times be employed. Growing tomatoes in your backyard is as much employment as working at a steel-mill.