Cafe Hayek - Latest Comments in Tranquilizing the Stimulators

Re: Tranquilizing the Stimulators

Babinich — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 01:34:23 -0000

TrUmPiT on Jan 10, 2009 @ 3:07:21 PM

"If there were a job for everyone who wanted one, there wouldn't be this talk about a stimulus."

I'd like you to clearly explain how a program like "one heartbeat, one job" could be implemented.

Assuming that the aforementioned program can be implemented I'd like to know if you believe that these people should get to pick the jobs they perform?

Re: Tranquilizing the Stimulators

dg lesvic — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 00:03:45 -0000

Let me restate that:

What you mean is that we can't have economics with those who don't want it. We have it with those who do, because we have all the definitions we need, whether anti-economists and anti-rationalists thinks so or not.

Re: Tranquilizing the Stimulators

dg lesvic — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 23:58:27 -0000

Crusader,

What you mean is that we can't have economics, just socialism.

Re: Tranquilizing the Stimulators

Crusader — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 22:40:23 -0000

dg & Lee - I'm sorry but I totally disagree with you. If you can't have a common set of definitions you can't have an argument. That's the starting point.

Re: Tranquilizing the Stimulators

dg lesvic — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 21:25:12 -0000

No, not just that all economics is at a standstill, but that it never even started.

Re: Tranquilizing the Stimulators

brotio — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 21:24:30 -0000

RE: Gil's post of Jan 10, 2009 9:43:37 PM

Gil,

I have made the point that if you don't like the price of something, you're not obligated to buy it. Unless it's being sold by the Political Caste.

Mierduck is a Priest in the Church of AGW. They would require we walk, anyway. We can't even ride bikes, bikes are typically made of metal, which is a carbon-intensive endeavor. Some bikes are made of carbon fiber. They must be especially eeeevil to the Church of AGW.

I'd also like to point out that gas may not have reached those historically high prices if government had not outlawed oil extraction in so much of the United States.

Re: Tranquilizing the Stimulators

dg lesvic — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 21:19:33 -0000

And I would add this.

Vidyohs had said:

"Until you define property then there is no way to argue against Martin."

And no way to argue against anything in economics. Vid is not simply telling me that I can't proceed with economics, but that nobody can, that all economics is at a standstill.

And, Vid, I'm sure you get the point!

Re: Tranquilizing the Stimulators

dg lesvic — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 21:04:56 -0000

Lee Kelly,

You are so right on everything, and especially this nonsense about definitions. That's just a problem in the minds of the people here who want to sidestep a tough issue.

If, in the real world, we couldn't have defined property, there wouldn't be any. Whatever the grey areas, there had to have been a general agreement about what it consisted of. They grey areas are a problem for lawyers and judges, not economists. Almost all of the issues concerning property, in the real world, are not about what it consists of, but how to treat it. For example, the dispute over eminent domain takings. The takers don't challenge the definition of the property they're taking, just the sanctity of it.

Re: Tranquilizing the Stimulators

Lee Kelly — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 20:49:59 -0000

Crusader,

Definitions are conventional. It is possible to adopt an alternative set of definitions and state your views using the new vocabulary. It really does not matter whether you are using the words 'liberty' or 'property'. For example, I might say to Martin, 'the problem that concerns me is what set of property laws we should try to enforce, not what laws are currently enforced.'

This does not require you to adopt alternative definitions now and forever. To suggest that there can be no debate because of such a trivial obstacle is nonsense, especially when the root of any misunderstanding is recognised.

Re: Tranquilizing the Stimulators

Crusader — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 20:38:32 -0000

Lee Kelly - you are correct in that if 2 people can't even agree on the definition of terms there can't be any debate.

Re: Tranquilizing the Stimulators

brotio — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 18:50:59 -0000

"Good shot." - Vidyohs

Thanks!

Re: Tranquilizing the Stimulators

Lee Kelly — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 18:50:56 -0000

The deflationary aftermath of an inflationary boom is the solution to years of malinvestment and overconsumption. As interest rates increase so does the incentive to save (that is, more is supplied at a higher price).

Every dollar of debt is a claim on future production. Central banks overextend credit by expanding the money supply and thereby keeping interest rates too low. An economy is then set upon an unsustainable growth path, which is undone when people begin paying back or defaulting on their loans. Deflation and recession are the hallmarks of the correction, not the problem. As demand plummets and prices fall, malinvestments are purged from the economy and resources reallocated. Interest rates rise along with the incentive to save again, and labour is shifted away from services and towards industry (unemployment rises suddenly as this correction begins).

Prices are like messengers, and sometimes they bring bad news. The U.S. Government is trying to currupt the message by way of inflation. But it cannot change the underlying reality, all it can do is make prices send false messages.

The false message they intend to send is that Americans have more income to spend on consumption. This will stimulate supply and prolong the boom for a short time, but only by debasing the the currency. Eventually suppliers will start spending their dollars and realise they have been ripped off. Imports will then dry up and all the jobs saved by the "stimulus" will go anyway. In the meantime even more wealth has been squandered, making the rebuilding even more difficult.

Re: Tranquilizing the Stimulators

Lee Kelly — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 18:41:02 -0000

Martin just means something else by the terms 'liberty' and 'property'. If I adopt his definitions, then I rarely disagree.

For example, for Martin your home is not really your property unless the rights associated with ownership are actually enforced. It is more of a practical or pragmatic thing. But for most libertarians, if the normative rules of ownership define something as your property, then it is rightfully yours even if you cannot exert any rights over it as a practical matter.

Re: Tranquilizing the Stimulators

dg lesvic — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 18:25:11 -0000

Americans once included human beings within their definition of property. They no longer do so. Other things may also come and go. But, however property is defined, the principles governing it remain the same. For, whatever it consists of, you either own it or you don't, and have a right to it or not, and total or partial, abolute or limited, and immutable or contingent.

Re: Tranquilizing the Stimulators

vidyohs — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 17:28:17 -0000

dg lesvic,

re: your discussion/debate/ring-a=round-the-mulberry bush with Martin.

Until you define property then there is no way to argue against Martin.

Property in the nature of a plot of land can be seen in the narrow view as restrictive to freedom as one first has to occupy it and defend it. What Martin does not understand or won't admit (take you around the mulberry bush on) is that when an individual makes the personal decision to occupy and defend a plot of land as his own property he is doing so freely and therefore his actions are but an extension of that freedom.

Martin strikes me as being in the infancy of his independent thought, he has good ideas that he seems to not yet have thought out very well. But, he can write reems on that that he thinks he knows.

Now, if we recognize that property is not just land then it becomes even harder for Martin to defend his position.

My garden tiller is my property and I can take it and use it where ever I wish and it does not restrict my movements or inconvenience me in anyway, so to assert (as Martin seems to be doing) that it is a loss of freedom is absurd. My bow, my gun, my camera and video equipment are property and like my garden tiller do not enslave me as much as they do liberate me.

Martin, I believe, means well but his thoughts, and his expression thereof, seem to be rather unintentionally loosely organized. In evidence I offer the fact that for Martin to make a post under 1,000 words is a rare treat, and even then I go to sleep long before I reach the end even when I suspect that there is a point in there somewhere.

In summary, property is an ambiguous word that needs defining before debates can be conducted with meaningful results.

Good luck.

Re: Tranquilizing the Stimulators

Randy — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 17:05:13 -0000

dg lesvic,

"I have no idea how you would define liberty."

He gets his definition from the royalist propagandists, whose response to the liberty movements of their time was the idea that liberty was only possible under the rule of a strong state (preferably a monarch, of course), and that complete liberty is really just a fantasy. As Hobbes puts it, the alternative (to Leviathan) is a "constant state of war of all against all", in which life is "nasty, brutish, and short" - scare tactics. Perhaps the intentions were noble, but what these propagandists forget is that people were rebelling for a reason. They imagined a divinely inspired state that would end the war of all against all, but neglected to mention where the people to run this state would come from. If we imagine a world populated with those who exploit and those who are exploited, then which class is likely to be drawn to the positions of power within Leviathan? Bottom line; Leviathan in practice is no divine state. It is a confederation of exploitation.

Re: Tranquilizing the Stimulators

dg lesvic — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 17:02:26 -0000

I had written:

"since only the strong could have freedom for aggression, freedom as an equal right of all must mean freedom not for but from aggression."

That should have been, "since only the strong could have freedom for aggression, and everyone freedom from it, freedom as an equal right of all must mean freedom not for but from aggression."

Re: Tranquilizing the Stimulators

Gil — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 16:43:37 -0000

" Kinsley argues that last summer's high oil prices were essentially a tax on consumers . . ."

I'm surprised someone such as brotio or vidyohs didn't chime in with something like this:

"Can't Kinsley tell the difference between a free market transaction and an imposed government service? The money made by the oil companies was a free trade with the consumers of oil as opposed to a taxed-imposed government program. Whiners of oil prices can get a pushbide or convert a vehicle to electricity at their own expense."

Re: Tranquilizing the Stimulators

Crusader — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 16:30:20 -0000

dg lesvic - I guess liberty can be defined as within any system. After all, we are all bound by the laws of physics(gravity, friction) all conspire to prevent ultimate freedom of movement in the universe.

More practically speaking, one could theorize about levels of freedom within a laiszze-faire vs socialist democracy. It's a debate worth having. But not with the muirgeo types.

Re: Tranquilizing the Stimulators

dg lesvic — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 15:46:34 -0000

Martin Brock,

You've given us some very fundamental issues to wrestle with. I've done so at some length in my book, but, out of respect for the property rights of others here, will see how far I can get with a few words.

You wrote:

"Property is not liberty. It is a...restraint on liberty."

I have no idea how you would define liberty. But, to me, it is a synonym for freedom. And since only the strong could have freedom for aggression, freedom as an equal right of all must mean freedom not for but from aggression, the right to be let alone, to offer or withhold one's own resources, and none but one's own, however defined at any one particular time or place.

Given that definition of freedom, or liberty, the right of private property is the bulwark of it, and a restraint only on aggression.

You wrote:

"Property is always a monopoly right at some level, and excessive monopoly can effectively rule out the participation of many factors in a market."

There is no such thing as excessive monopoly in a free market. The market is the optimum, and, whatever the extent of monopoly in it, the optimum extent of it.

Re: Tranquilizing the Stimulators

Crusader — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 14:42:58 -0000

Martin - what would be a more ideal society, that we restart in total anarchy and let a dictator rule over ever little fiefdom like in the old days? I'm not saying our current system is utopia, but it's a lot better then feudal Europe. That you seem to make no distinctions between the systems is weird.

Re: Tranquilizing the Stimulators

Crusader — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 14:41:18 -0000

I noticed for a long time now that muirgeo comes on here to bash all his right-wing bogeymen and never actually provide substance to the debate of how do we fix this economy.

This stimulus will be nothing but the Fed printing more trillions triggering hyperinflation. Good times ahead.

Re: Tranquilizing the Stimulators

vidyohs — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 14:27:35 -0000

Why muirduck, my little thumbsucking chihuahua, why would I give up something I earned by honoring every detail of my contracts? Ju gotta be real stoopid r something! (Oh cheet, I just realized, Chihuahuas don't suck their thumbs, they suck their little dew claws.)

It is your exhalted government that does not honor contracts, that cesspool entity delights in changing rules.

I performed, now they can perform. It is my most ferverent wish, my hope, my dream, that you, muirduck, through the excise taxes you pay, are personally bearing the enitre cost of my retirement. LOL, talk about poetic justice!

Re: Tranquilizing the Stimulators

Martin Brock — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 14:19:58 -0000

There would be a job for everyone who wanted one, in a completely free market.

The problem with this assertion is that "completely free market" is chimerical. It's a contradiction in terms. Property is not liberty. It is a minarchical restraint on liberty; otherwise, "life, liberty and property" is redundant.

Orderly markets require property, and property is not "free". A property right is forcible, or it's meaningless. Property is always a monopoly right at some level, and excessive monopoly can effectively rule out the participation of many factors in a market.

The role of the state in counteracting excessive monopoly is not to "bust" monopolies, because the state creates all monopoly in the first instance. The role of the state is to stop enforcing its counterproductive monopolies, so if Microsoft actually had a counterproductive monopoly in computer operating systems, the state might stop enforcing or loosen enforcement of the company's patents or copyrights for example.

Re: Tranquilizing the Stimulators

vidyohs — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 14:19:01 -0000

Brotio,

Torquemierduck? Good shot.