Cafe Hayek - Latest Comments in Cassidy on the meltdown

Re: Cassidy on the meltdown

vidyohs — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 07:48:20 -0000

Martin,

There you go, I did not contract with any state. I contracted with the corporation known as THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, which is a prima facie "state" to you, but no state to me.

My consideration of taxation as a terrible injustice you say is a pretense? Now how would you know that? Just more of your pompous pontification on matters which you know nothing.

My military pension is paid to me by the corporation in accordance with the will of those taxpayers, it is the corporation that consumes their production and they can stop that at anytime they want. I won't miss it at all except to acknowledge that once again the corporation would reveal itself to be a cesspool of corruption. Besides I talked with Dwight back in 59 when I first contracted and he assured me that none of the money that came to me as a result of the contract would come from people who didn't volunteer taxes.

And, a self correction (even though it is irrelevant) is not an admission of mistaken position, it is a retraction of a statement made but not yet challenged.

Since we are back on this subject, I quote from the above extract of the Coinage Act of 1792:

"Dollars or Units—each to be of the value of a Spanish milled dollar as the same is now current, and to contain three hundred and seventy-one grains and four sixteenths parts of a grain of pure, or four hundred and sixteen grains of standard silver."

Two brain cells to rub together is all it takes to see that there is no mention of pennies or copper in that description of a dollar.

BTW, just when is that Nobel Prize in economics coming your way?

Re: Cassidy on the meltdown

Martin Brock — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 04:50:29 -0000

Your contracting with the state is different, because you pretend that taxation is a terrible injustice while consuming the produce of taxpayers by writ of your state pension. The discussion of Japanese demographics is not addressed to you. If you want a mistake I've conceded, look immediately above your "hoot" in this forum, at a post addressed to you yesterday. If you want something more substantive, you can search the archives yourself.

Re: Cassidy on the meltdown

vidyohs — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 03:29:41 -0000

I made the challenge knowing what the response must be, dear martin. Why would you take the time when we both know the search would be fruitless.

Now the brain cell......maybe. Even Milton tells me that nothing is an impossibility. LOL.

One day we might actually have a discussion in which you stay on point instead of dodging and twisting. I look forward to the day; but, if it happens it will be by accident because my skimming eye catches something in the volume of your posts.

The point of this whole exchange was how is my contracting with the corporate government any different than my contracting with General Motors or Walmart. And, how is it absurd that I would sacrafice my pension to see the government constrained in a libertarian manner or done away with if that is not possible.

Instead of a response to that I got employment figures from Japan. Relevant as hell, in martinworld.

Re: Cassidy on the meltdown

Marcus — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 23:04:41 -0000

"What happens when an entire generation of people chooses simultaneously not to invest in vital real capital requiring decades to produce while "saving" simply by selling one another notes promising entitlement to consume decades in the future?..."

-- Posted by: Martin Brock | Nov 25, 2008 1:31:07 PM

Interesting stuff Martin.

Re: Cassidy on the meltdown

Martin Brock — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 22:35:20 -0000

You aren't worth the time.

Re: Cassidy on the meltdown

vidyohs — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 18:44:12 -0000

Martin martin martin,

"Some people are psychologically incapable of conceding a mistake.

Posted by: Martin Brock | Nov 25, 2008 7:27:59 PM"

Just look at the "We are the Web" thread and you will see I did just that, not uncommon for a chap like me.

Now I did my "show & Tell", you produce one single incidence of your own admission of a mistake or misstatement in any debate with anyone on this blog over the last year.

While you're looking, keep a sharp eye out for that missing brain cell.

Re: Cassidy on the meltdown

vidyohs — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 15:21:52 -0000

Yessss! vidyohs pulls the great big HUH from his glove and examines it....it is spherical and has no point...he holds it up and the crowd roars in agreement....no point to a shpere.

I'd be happy to see some sort of explanation of how a great big spherical HUH wound up in my glove.

Re: Cassidy on the meltdown

vidyohs — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 15:19:07 -0000

martin,

So my friend Milton is dead and unavailable for verification.......gee who-da thunk it?

LOL!

Re: Cassidy on the meltdown

Sam Grove — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 15:01:34 -0000

FRNs, Federal Reserve Notes.

Or perhaps you were wondering why I asked that question.

Re: Cassidy on the meltdown

Martin Brock — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 14:27:59 -0000

Some people are psychologically incapable of conceding a mistake.

Re: Cassidy on the meltdown

vidyohs — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 14:04:06 -0000

I love you martin, just the way a cat loves a mouse. LOL, you are a hoot.

Re: Cassidy on the meltdown

Martin Brock — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 13:30:23 -0000

Correction: the Mint may coin as many "dollars" in copper pennies and half pennies, of unspecified purity, as it likes.

Re: Cassidy on the meltdown

Martin Brock — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 13:28:52 -0000

... this gives the exact measure of coins, including dollars, in weight and purity.

"Eagles—each to be of the value of ten dollars or units, and to contain two hundred and forty-seven grains and four eighths of a grain of pure, or two hundred and seventy grains of standard gold. ... Half Dismes—each to be of the value of one twentieth of a dollar, and to contain eighteen grains and nine sixteenths parts of a grain of pure, or twenty grains and four fifths parts of a grain of standard silver. Cents—each to be of the value of one hundredth part of a dollar, and to contain eleven penny-weights of copper."

You write "purity", then you quote text that states the purity of only gold and silver, plainly omitting any purity of copper pennies and half pennies. You're playing a politicians of game of lying by omission.

Even if the text stated a purity of copper (though it clearly doesn't), copper is not a precious metal. The "dollar" is not defined in terms of the weight of precious metals. Rather, the price of gold and silver is defined in terms of "dollars", and the Mint may coin as many "dollars" in copper pennies and half pennies, of specified purity, as it likes. If you look at more recent statutes enacting gold standards, this point is very explicit.

And of course, this statute doesn't prevent anyone issuing a promissory note for a dollar's worth of gold coin without possessing a dollar's worth of gold coin. That's what a "dollar bill" is under a gold standard, you know. I guess you don't know.

Why, martin, I even see exact weights for pennies and ha'pennies, but of course a nonexact description of a copper penny would negate the exact description of a dollar...

Above you write "weight and purity". Here you write only "weight", adding "exact" to cover the omission. You should run for office.

Ask Milton, if you don't believe me.

Milton is dead, making this challenge a bit disingenuous. I quoted him, and you've simply ignored the quote. If you studied under him, that's great, but you don't demonstrate any understanding of his work here. I need more than your anecdote to take you seriously. If you can quote Milton Friedman making your point, go ahead. I've already done so.

Re: Cassidy on the meltdown

vidyohs — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 11:55:49 -0000

It takes at least two brain cells to understand that this gives the exact measure of coins, including dollars, in weight and purity. Why do you have a problem, martin?

SEC. 9. And be it further enacted, That there shall be from time to time struck and coined at the said mint, coins of gold, silver, and copper, of the following denomination, values and descriptions, viz. Eagles—each to be of the value of ten dollars or units, and to contain two hundred and forty-seven grains and four eighths of a grain of pure, or two hundred and seventy grains of standard gold. Half Eagles—each to be of the value of five dollars, and to contain one hundred and twenty-three grains and six eighths of a grain of pure, or one hundred and thirty-five grains of standard gold. Quarter Eagles—each to be of the value of two dollars and a half dollar, and to contain sixty-one grains and seven eighths of a grain of pure, or sixty-seven grains and four eighths of a grain of standard gold. Dollars or Units—each to be of the value of a Spanish milled dollar as the same is now current, and to contain three hundred and seventy-one grains and four sixteenths parts of a grain of pure, or four hundred and sixteen grains of standard silver. Half Dollars—each to be of half the value of the dollar or unit, and to contain one hundred and eighty-five grains and ten sixteenth parts of a grain of pure, or two hundred and eight grains of standard silver. Quarter Dollars—each to be of one fourth the value of the dollar or unit, and to contain ninety-two grains and thirteen sixteenth parts of a grain of pure, or one hundred and four grains of standard silver. Dismes—each to be of the value of one tenth of a dollar or unit, and to contain thirty-seven grains and two sixteenth parts of a grain of pure, or forty-one grains and three fifths parts of a grain of standard silver. Half Dismes—each to be of the value of one twentieth of a dollar, and to contain eighteen grains and nine sixteenths parts of a grain of pure, or twenty grains and four fifths parts of a grain of standard silver. Cents—each to be of the value of one hundredth part of a dollar, and to contain eleven penny-weights of copper. Half Cents—each to be of the value of half a cent, and to contain five penny-weights and a half a penny-weight of copper.

Half Eagles.

Quarter Eagles.

Dollars or Units.

Why, martin, I even see exact weights for pennies and ha'pennies, but of course a nonexact description of a copper penny would negate the exact description of a dollar.....why hell yeah! In martinworld it would. LOL, the lengths you will go to avoid admiting that you see what you see.

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, martin, is to search for that other brain cell.

Now, martin, how can you say that about Milton and me? I'll have you know that Milton told me in confidence one day that I was the best student he ever had because I could take his lessons and interpret them into action on the street.....I never debated him about pennies. Ask Milton, if you don't believe me.

Re: Cassidy on the meltdown

vidyohs — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 11:44:07 -0000

And there is the crack of the bat, Sam drives this one ("So, vidyohs, you don't transact with FRNs?

Posted by: Sam Grove | Nov 25, 2008 4:00:06 PM") deep deep into the outfield.....vidyohs goes back back back, staring into the sun, tracking the flight, and reaching up with desperate effort snags a great big.....HUH?

Re: Cassidy on the meltdown

Martin Brock — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 11:05:05 -0000

You already know that the Coinage Act of 1792 entitles the Mint to coin copper pennies without specifying any relationship to banked gold or silver or even the purity of the copper, and you know that pennies and half-pennies were the common currency at the time, not rounding errors as they are now, so the Coinage Act fixes the price of gold and silver in dollars, not the price of dollars in gold and silver.

You don't know much of what Milton Friedman thought about anything either. He was a monetarist, not a Rothbardian. He understood that a gold standard involves promissory notes secured by assets valued relative to gold and not simply gold warehouse receipts. He thought that both the promissory notes and the warehouse receipts could be privatized in a free money system, but he thought a free money system with a fixed gold price impractical.

You could listen to Selgin on EconTalk, but you won't, because he confronts your denial. You believe whatever it pleases you to believe, regardless of anything Milton Friedman or anyone else tells you.

Re: Cassidy on the meltdown

Sam Grove — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 11:00:06 -0000

So, vidyohs, you don't transact with FRNs?

Re: Cassidy on the meltdown

vidyohs — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 10:26:12 -0000

Tsk tsk martin,

http://landru.i-link-2.net/...

The coinage act of 1792 is clear to anyone with two brain cells to rub together that the dollar was created in 1792....let's see now...1792 plus 200 would mean that by 1992 the dollar had been in existence for 200 years, now add 16 and we get 216 years the dollar has been around.

However, I see my mistake in my thinking and thanks to you, martin, I will now correct myself.

Oh, BTW, congratulations on your upcoming Nobel Prize in Economics, the one rewarded for your work in refuting Milton Freidman.

Now my mistake was in aligning myself with such a dolt as Freidman, and actually fooling myself into believing that I could see an exact reflection of his theories in my street dealings. What a fool I was.

I am hence forth going to come here to read your concise, succinct, clear, intelligent, rational, and brilliant writings on your economic thought.

When you get your Nobel, will you send me an autograph?

No no, wait a minute. For God's sake, vidyohs, you're writing a response to a man that can't even understand the Coinage Act of 1792, which, as you said, means he doesn't have two brain cells to rub together.

Naw, forget it martin, I think I'll stick with Freidman.

Re: Cassidy on the meltdown

Sam Grove — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 10:18:03 -0000

Sorry, that was me. I got used to the blog software taking me to the preview screen.

Re: Cassidy on the meltdown

Anonymous — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 10:17:06 -0000

That's because people largely haven't grasped the fundamental nature of economic system dynamics (OVER TIME).

We are diverted by accounting and dollar signs from seeing the base reality which the accounting system refers to but does not describe.

Re: Cassidy on the meltdown

Martin Brock — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 08:47:03 -0000

The collapse of the Soviet Union actually coincided with the peak of the Russian population, and the size of the labor force peaks before population peaks. The collapse wasn't simply demographic, but accounts of the collapse largely ignored the demographic transition and other economic fundamentals, instead emphasizing political factors almost exclusively.

Re: Cassidy on the meltdown

Martin Brock — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 08:36:52 -0000

But the population of rent collectors is not peaking. It grows rapidly for decades to come. While the Japanese labor force declines, the population of rent collectors doubles. In the U.S., the population of rent collectors grows rapidly while the labor force practically stops growing, but at least our labor force won't be declining.

Re: Cassidy on the meltdown

Martin Brock — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 08:31:07 -0000

I was making a distinction.

I understand. I was reiterating your point really, but emphasizing what inflation/deflation is rather than what it isn't. The falling price of oil doesn't alarm me. The price is still twice its long term value and far above its price only three years ago. That's obviously not deflation.

I still expect global production of conventional oil to peak soon, if it hasn't peaked already, but the peak doesn't imply an unlimited price increase. We've beaten back the stratospheric price this time simply by consuming less, and I suppose we can cut our consumption far more without substantially harming our economy in the long run, even without alternatives. With alternatives, $50-60 a barrel or less, not $150/barrel, could be a new equilibrium price as far as the eye can see. I certainly hope so.

Monetary policy can be inflationary, but simply attributing inflation to easy monetary policy can be misleading.

What happens when an entire generation of people chooses simultaneously not to invest in vital real capital requiring decades to produce while "saving" simply by selling one another notes promising entitlement to consume decades in the future?

What happens when the notes start coming due but the real means of production don't exist?

What if the people selling each other promissory notes are themselves the most valuable real means of production, but each produced far fewer copies of themselves than the generating preceding them?

We have no historical precedent for what's happening now. The human population grew rapidly throughout the industrial, capitalist revolution, so we have no experience of capitalism without this growth. Now, human population growth has fallen dramatically, and the human population may soon peak and begin a decline, as has already happened in Japan.

If modern capitalism is really all about rent seeking, particularly rents imposed on labor, rather than owning the marginal product of nonhuman capital, what happens when rents peak along with the size of the labor force?

Think that's happening decades from now? No. The Japanese labor force has already peaked and is now declining. The U.S. labor force will practically peak roughly ten years from now, though it probably won't decline for many decades.

Re: Cassidy on the meltdown

Marcus — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 07:55:41 -0000

"Inflation is a general rise in prices, essentially all prices rising in tandem."

I understand that Martin. I was making a distinction.

"Oil is a critical commodity affecting many other prices, but the changing price of oil alone doesn't signal inflation or deflation."

Except, apparently, to some it has.

Look at the current concern over falling CPI. Looking at the components of the index the fall can largely be explained by falling energy prices.

Yes Martin, I understand that those falling prices in oil are largely a result of falling demand. My point is, that is prices doing what they are suppose to do. Signaling information.

It is my OPINION, that the term inflation (or deflation) should refer only to monetary causes of general price increases (or decreases).

Re: Cassidy on the meltdown

Martin Brock — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 07:28:10 -0000

... the real demand to hold dollars.

This statement isn't very meaningful. A "dollar" is unit of account, so I hardly know what it means to "hold dollars". We can hold dollar denominated securities like Treasury notes or mortgage backed securities from FNMA or a CD or other bank deposit, but holding a dollar isn't very useful.

People typically don't hold dollars. We spend dollars. Spending dollars is only an abstraction of real exchange. I exchange labor, or fruits of my labor, for money, and I immediately exchange the money for goods of comparable value, possibly including securities.

When I buy a "security", I'm buying a promise of entitlement to consume in the future. My money isn't "held" in this scenario. It's credited to someone else for current expenditure, hopefully on profitable means of production. In the case of Treasury securities I purchase, the money is spent by armed men promising forcibly to seize goods for me in the future.

If I thought I could overpower these armed men selling Treasury securities, I might just cut out the middleman and purchase guns myself. Then when I want entitlement to consume in the future, I could threaten to harm producers refusing to give it to me. Since I don't expect to overpower the statesmen, I acquiesce to their monopoly of force and purchase this service from them.