How to learn more about libertarianism
07 Jul 2015, 9:49 am
I can tolerate you and your beliefs but when given complete power people like you kill people like me, that's why it always makes me laugh hearing people fearmonger about libertarians because there isn't anything libertarian about SWAT'd by a bunch of jackbooted thugs from some alphabet soup government agency. Worst case scenario with me is that you get left all alone, sick I know.
I have 0 degrees in economics. I suspect that you have the same number of degrees in economics.
It takes only a cursory examination of facts to learn that in the field of economics, austrian school is considered heterodox. Right next to marxian economics and institutional economics.
This means that people who seriously study economics basically think it is at best a curiosity. That history has shown that it has no functional application in the management of private or public affairs.
That, in short, no matter how much people like to argue that it is true, it simply doesn't work.
Frankly, people who study econ seriously are all about making money and then turning that money into more money. If the application of austrian economics worked for them, they would be all for it.
Back in 2008, when i asked my econ-masters-having, 20-plus-years-in-finance-working older brother about the various proposed theories of what caused the crash, he said that what really caused the crash was "A lot of people allowing themselves to believe things that they knew to be untrue". Essentially the belief that your hedge is such a good hedge that it would happen to everyone else who was doing the exact same sketchy stuff you are doing.
He then further explained that in any open debate about any economic or financial policy, each side invariably takes a position because it allows them to make more money.
That, for example, when his employer proposes that the stock market should allow trades on a granularity of 1 second, they have said this because they have thought of a way that 1 second granularity will allow them to make more money.
And that when a competitor then makes an impassioned argument that 6 second granularity is right, true, and ordained by God, they are saying this because they have found a reason why 6 second granularity allows them to make more money than a proposed 1 second granularity.
And in truth, if a large financial entity was reasonably certain that drowning kittens would make millions of dollars for them, you would hear finance pundits on the evening news expounding on how it is righteous and virtuous to drown kittens. Even if they do not actually believe this.
Where austrian economics and some others (like feminist economics) stick out like a sore thumb is where they have not been successfully applied to the task of making money. Probably because people are making these arguments because they feel true, rather than because a great deal of research suggests that doing it that way would be a money maker.
And that's the difference. People who actually practice economics want something that will help them achieve an economic goal, whether or not squares with their personal, emotional beliefs.
And people who practice politics want something that will help them achieve a political goal.
Ron Paul may actually believe in austrian economic theory, since in 2008 he was in a very strong position to make a huge personal profit if the dollar were to have failed.
And it did not fail.
Also, godwin much?
You have zero degrees in economics, you neglect to read any of the material you oppose, you opinion seems based on the opinions others. You even say in your post that economics is a crap shoot and that it is the only line of work you can be in while still being wrong 80% of the time yet we are suppose to care what the "consensus" thinks about anything? They don't agree with somebody that thinks they're totally full of s**t, I am shocked!
They are all part bs, but some are mostly bs.
The austrians made a handfull of useful contributions to mainstream economics, like the concept of opportunity cost, but over all they are generally just wrong.
Why would i burden myself with becoming expert in a cockamamie school of thought?
I don't have to study dog crap like a sommelier to know that it isn't good to eat.
07 Jul 2015, 10:23 am
Anyway, libertarians seem to have this weird obsession with needing money to be "real".
Money, by definition, is a consensual construct.
One way or another, it is all cowry shells. All of it. And you'd best get used to it.
Representative money is actually more stable than a barter system predicated on the exchange of sparkly objects because a well regulated central bank can alternately swamp or bolster the market forces that would otherwise cause rapid fluctuations.
Since the intrinsic value of precious metals is actually far less than their monetary value, we can easily see that gold, used as currency, is not truly being traded on it's intrinsic value. It is being traded based on a consensual valuation, just like any other currency.
And since there is no king of manipulators, the consensual valuation spikes every year with the wedding season in india.
And maybe you like that about gold. But i would encourage you to talk to anyone who went long on gold in 1980.
I think, and pretty much all nations and financial institutions agree, that a currency that is representative of the GDP of it's issuer is more reliable and thus more useful.
Jacoby
Veteran
Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash
07 Jul 2015, 10:45 am
I can tolerate you and your beliefs but when given complete power people like you kill people like me, that's why it always makes me laugh hearing people fearmonger about libertarians because there isn't anything libertarian about SWAT'd by a bunch of jackbooted thugs from some alphabet soup government agency. Worst case scenario with me is that you get left all alone, sick I know.
I have 0 degrees in economics. I suspect that you have the same number of degrees in economics.
It takes only a cursory examination of facts to learn that in the field of economics, austrian school is considered heterodox. Right next to marxian economics and institutional economics.
This means that people who seriously study economics basically think it is at best a curiosity. That history has shown that it has no functional application in the management of private or public affairs.
That, in short, no matter how much people like to argue that it is true, it simply doesn't work.
Frankly, people who study econ seriously are all about making money and then turning that money into more money. If the application of austrian economics worked for them, they would be all for it.
Back in 2008, when i asked my econ-masters-having, 20-plus-years-in-finance-working older brother about the various proposed theories of what caused the crash, he said that what really caused the crash was "A lot of people allowing themselves to believe things that they knew to be untrue". Essentially the belief that your hedge is such a good hedge that it would happen to everyone else who was doing the exact same sketchy stuff you are doing.
He then further explained that in any open debate about any economic or financial policy, each side invariably takes a position because it allows them to make more money.
That, for example, when his employer proposes that the stock market should allow trades on a granularity of 1 second, they have said this because they have thought of a way that 1 second granularity will allow them to make more money.
And that when a competitor then makes an impassioned argument that 6 second granularity is right, true, and ordained by God, they are saying this because they have found a reason why 6 second granularity allows them to make more money than a proposed 1 second granularity.
And in truth, if a large financial entity was reasonably certain that drowning kittens would make millions of dollars for them, you would hear finance pundits on the evening news expounding on how it is righteous and virtuous to drown kittens. Even if they do not actually believe this.
Where austrian economics and some others (like feminist economics) stick out like a sore thumb is where they have not been successfully applied to the task of making money. Probably because people are making these arguments because they feel true, rather than because a great deal of research suggests that doing it that way would be a money maker.
And that's the difference. People who actually practice economics want something that will help them achieve an economic goal, whether or not squares with their personal, emotional beliefs.
And people who practice politics want something that will help them achieve a political goal.
Ron Paul may actually believe in austrian economic theory, since in 2008 he was in a very strong position to make a huge personal profit if the dollar were to have failed.
And it did not fail.
Also, godwin much?
You have zero degrees in economics, you neglect to read any of the material you oppose, you opinion seems based on the opinions others. You even say in your post that economics is a crap shoot and that it is the only line of work you can be in while still being wrong 80% of the time yet we are suppose to care what the "consensus" thinks about anything? They don't agree with somebody that thinks they're totally full of s**t, I am shocked!
They are all part bs, but some are mostly bs.
The austrians made a handfull of useful contributions to mainstream economics, like the concept of opportunity cost, but over all they are generally just wrong.
Why would i burden myself with becoming expert in a cockamamie school of thought?
I don't have to study dog crap like a sommelier to know that it isn't good to eat.
Maybe it would answer some of the questions you have. I like to read opposing viewpoints sometimes, it certainly helps to know what you are arguing against most of the time.
As for the Austrian school, you have to understand that the opinions of "mainstream" economists on the subject are meaningless since they are either not taught about it or taught that it is bad and likewise it makes sense that they wouldn't agree with an economic philosophy diametrically opposed to them. Do you support the free market or do you believe in central economic planning? That is the difference. The entire field of economics is a soft social science not a hard one like physics or chemistry, Austrians do not believe "econometrics" because they don't believe that the complexity of the economy and human behavior can be predictably modelled so it would be pointless. They believe the market will correct itself if left alone and since human behavior cannot be predicted by mathematical models that it would be fruitless and ultimately harmful to interfere with the business cycle at any point.
07 Jul 2015, 11:27 am
I believe in central economic planning because it works and i benefit from it, and so do you. It gives you the luxury of dreaming about this mythical free market.
I believe in econometrics because when they don't work they are only a little wrong, and when they do work they really work.
07 Jul 2015, 11:45 am
More accurately, i believe in econometrics because generations of businessmen and politicians have successfully applied them to the creation of wealth.
Even in a soft science, things that work have value over idealistic dreams.
The austrian argument that they can't work is handily trumped by a history of seeing them work.
Jacoby
Veteran
Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash
07 Jul 2015, 12:06 pm
I believe in econometrics because when they don't work they are only a little wrong, and when they do work they really work.
I would say how well it "works" is up for debate, all you have to do is turn on the news and have a bit of a memory to see countless examples of how clueless mainstream economists are. Look at what Greece the birthplace of democracy has been reduced to. It doesn't seem to be working to me, we're just going from one boom bust business cycle to another.
Its all well and great that businessmen and politicians have successfully applied these metrics to making money but just because something worked for someone at one time doesn't mean it will now or for anyone else, human action isn't something that can measured and predicted in a mathematical model. Macroeconomics isn't something you can have a controlled study of, it isn't something you can recreate or test like you can with a real hard science. I would say the other schools of economic thought are much more pseudo-scientific with their methods, hiding behind graphs and model when logic and common sense say otherwise.
07 Jul 2015, 12:22 pm
I have seen some convincing arguments that greece was screwed over by the private, free market banks they borrowed from.
That and rampant tax fraud.
The eurozone also made the mistake of having one currency and several monetary policies.
There are economists that have been mostly correct in their predictions and none of them were austrians.
Jacoby
Veteran
Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash
07 Jul 2015, 1:02 pm
There is no way out for Greece, they can't realistically be expected to pay back a debt to GDP ratio of 170%. Austerity and tax increases won't change anything, if you give Greece money now then they will just need money again later so will probably Spain, Portugal, and maybe Italy. What they're negotiating right now is Greece's third bailout package, its not working and never will. Government spending in Greece has been cut a lot but the GDP has fallen and unemployment has exploded, revenues are down even as taxes have gone up. It is best that they default now and take the pain but the problem is the chickens coming home to roost for the rest of Europe and the world economy as well, the charade has gone on almost as long as it possibly can so it is just a question of what the first domino to fall will be.
07 Jul 2015, 1:57 pm
The bailouts haven't worked because the austerity measures dictated as part of the terms have had a disastrous effect on their already weak economy.
Even the IMF admits that those requirements were a mistake.
What they need is debt restructuring that will allow them to heal and grow their economy - but the private, free market banks they owe money to - mostly banks that were bailed out by the USA under quite favorable terms, and which have paid back their bailout money with interest - don't want to offer that to greece, and EU law says that they don't have to.
The eurozone could make all of this go away for 50 billion dollars. For the record that is a tiny fraction of what the citicorp bailout cost us.
Experts estimate that a 'grexit' would have a negative impact on the eurozone to the tune of about 300 billion dollars.
Sometimes what is fair or what some group might deserve is at odds with what works best for everyone.
Greece was among the nations that pushed for german debt to be forgiven after ww2. And germany had badly brutalized them in the war.
And germany's post-war debt was forgiven.
Jacoby
Veteran
Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash
07 Jul 2015, 2:29 pm
Even the IMF admits that those requirements were a mistake.
What they need is debt restructuring that will allow them to heal and grow their economy - but the private, free market banks they owe money to - mostly banks that were bailed out by the USA under quite favorable terms, and which have paid back their bailout money with interest - don't want to offer that to greece, and EU law says that they don't have to.
The eurozone could make all of this go away for 50 billion dollars. For the record that is a tiny fraction of what the citicorp bailout cost us.
Experts estimate that a 'grexit' would have a negative impact on the eurozone to the tune of about 300 billion dollars.
Sometimes what is fair or what some group might deserve is at odds with what works best for everyone.
Greece was among the nations that pushed for german debt to be forgiven after ww2. And germany had badly brutalized them in the war.
And germany's post-war debt was forgiven.
I mostly agree actually and that's why default is the only option, Argentina did it and was able to get a large portion of their debt forgiven. Greece's best bet is to default and to leave the euro because they need devaluation and fewer regulation in order to get their economy growing again, they can't expect to be competitive in the eurozone.
07 Jul 2015, 9:18 pm
The current regime in greece is big on reform and not shy about condemning the sins of their predecessors.
They are working on gaining access to the swiss bank accounts of wealthy greek oligarchs who didn't feel like paying their taxes for so long, for example.
They have every intention of taxing everybody, of course, but it makes no sense to crack down on the poor and middle class in the current situation.
They have a lot of crazy tax loopholes that need to be closed.
For example you don't have to pay property tax on unfinished construction.
People have made a science of exploiting this one. Sometimes even the original drawings for a house will show where they will leave some exposed re-bar or something, and how they will conceal it behind the landscaping, so that if the tax man comes by you can tell him some cock & bull story about how you can't find a contractor willing to finish the job.
The only people who pay taxes in greece are small business owners and people too poor to bribe anyone.
If they fix the problems they have, they can probably be a successful member of the EU.
And like i said, their exit from the EU would come at tremendous expense to the EU. Not to mention that it's explicit in EU law that membership is permanent.
Jacoby
Veteran
Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash
09 Jul 2015, 1:10 am
They are working on gaining access to the swiss bank accounts of wealthy greek oligarchs who didn't feel like paying their taxes for so long, for example.
They have every intention of taxing everybody, of course, but it makes no sense to crack down on the poor and middle class in the current situation.
They have a lot of crazy tax loopholes that need to be closed.
For example you don't have to pay property tax on unfinished construction.
People have made a science of exploiting this one. Sometimes even the original drawings for a house will show where they will leave some exposed re-bar or something, and how they will conceal it behind the landscaping, so that if the tax man comes by you can tell him some cock & bull story about how you can't find a contractor willing to finish the job.
The only people who pay taxes in greece are small business owners and people too poor to bribe anyone.
If they fix the problems they have, they can probably be a successful member of the EU.
And like i said, their exit from the EU would come at tremendous expense to the EU. Not to mention that it's explicit in EU law that membership is permanent.
I don't think Greece is in danger of getting kicked out of the EU although they should consider it so they deal with immigration themselves instead of just being the EU's dumping ground for refugees and illegal immigrants. They were better off before.
I don't think the EU as we know will continue to exist much longer, Greece is not the only country with a debt problem and anti-austerity, eurosceptic, and anti-immigration parties rising all over Europe. Spain's equivalent to Greece's Syriza is called Podemos and its leader Pablo Iglesias has been shoulder to shoulder with Alexis Tsipras this entire crisis. The EU needs to far left to support it, it can't survive with both the far left and far right against it. The UK will have a referendum on its EU membership sooner than later, I think once one leaves there will be more to follow. There are people out there that don't want the EU to work and will work against it, this is true everywhere but EU is the most vulnerable to internal division. The US and Russia both have vested interest in Europe separate from those of the EU, they will make their influence felt in some way or another.
10 Jul 2015, 7:08 pm
Those who are interested might also want to go to this site and click on 'personalize' in the upper right corner. It gives you a nice compilation of policies that some people consider libertarian, and a sense of what parts of the US are friendly to them.
10 Jul 2015, 8:12 pm
By what?
All of the arguments that I've heard in favor of central banks have to do with the market "panics" in the late 1800s (which were bank failures, not currency failures) and the need to find a source of free money to pay for an increasingly unpopular war in Vietnam and get Nixon re-elected.
Yes, bring in the mountain lions to deal with your coyote problem. Very smart.
Are you innocent of that? Most of those observations apply just as well to social deregulation (which most libertarians also support, BTW). No-fault divorce led to a 50% divorce rate, which was then used in the gay marriage debate ("It's broken as it is."). It all depends on what you value. Fiscal liberals don't think that allowing markets to go up and down is such a bad thing, and social liberals feel the same way about relationships.
So far it sounds like you're in favor of unaffordable wars, thuggery, and non-consensual security blankets.
Tollorin
Veteran
Joined: 14 Jun 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,178
Location: Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada
11 Jul 2015, 12:02 am
You don't understand the liberal indeology very well if you think they would kill you once in power. Liberals (Those honests in their beliefs at least.) believe in democracy, freedom of opinions, lifestyles and religions as well as a mixing of capitalists and socialists ideas to allow prosperity while avoiding the worst of market excess. Thus a honest liberal would allow you to express your idea while still allowing himself the right to be critical to them.
By the way, it seem that when we examine facts and statistics the reality is on the size of liberals as far as far as prosperity and freedom is concerned.
11 Jul 2015, 5:16 am
I am a libertarian and was a Libertarian for three months back in the 90's, that cured me of it.
I would classify myself as a anarcho-capitalist and abolitionist on the spectrum.
I run a blog at http://zerogov.com/. Come by and visit sometime.
I find myself in epistemological conflict with self-identified conservatives and liberals both. I think there are coercionists and individualists and that has better descriptive power than left and right.
It all boils down to the Non-Aggression Principle as the fulcrum for individual liberty.
I recommend the Mises Institute as a great place to begin examining the concepts.
Rothbard is a great author to start with but begin with The Law by Bastiat and Economics in One Lesson by Hazlitt.
I also run a forum at http://zerogov.com/forum/ which affords a deeper forum to cross rhetorical swords.
_________________
Gun control is mind control.
" Of every One-Hundred men, Ten shouldn't even be there,
Eighty are nothing but targets,
Nine are real fighters...
We are lucky to have them...They make the battle,
Ah, but the One, One of them is a Warrior...
and He will bring the others back."
- Heraclitus
