If you had ever studied economics, you’d know that rather than an increase in prices, inflation is actually defined as a persistent tendency for prices to rise. That’s something I taught kids in their first month of studying the subject.
That’s what I meant by inflation- the persistent tendency. I was thrown by the weird, arbitrary re-definition of a word I know the meaning of.
Kind of entertaining in a bizarre way someone so keen on property rights is willing to violate the intellectual property rights of others in such a cavalier fashion…
Those terms are not mutually exclusive. Libertarians like to repeat that chestnut, but it really doesn’t make any sense. We are a representative democracy. We are a republic. Those two statements are not contradictory.
In all fairness, if the mods have decided that I have asked the question enough to show that he will never answer it, that should really apply across the board, don’t you think? That line of questioning, although pertinent to some of his points, isn’t going to go anywhere.
The Master speaks. (By proxy, anyway.)
This side issue is analogous to the rest of your screed. You have absorbed some rather unusual world views and interpretations of history, converted them into dogma, and reject out of hand all attempts to provide you with reasoned and reasonable refutation.
See, it is statements like these that demonstrate just how distorted your understanding of the world truly is. The 19th Century, despite (or because of) the Industrial Revolution and the manifest changes it brought, basically sucked for everybody except industry owners and the landed elite. Factory workers paid pennies per hour in cities differed little in “the finer things in life” from agricultural peasants in the countryside.
Well, in point of fact, this isn’t really true. Lots of people historically have been forced to work, for poor or even zero wages. Even if we remove chattel slavery from the discussion, economic slavery remains. Until the government protected wage earners, business could pay whatever the poorest, most hardship ridden segment of the population could be given, even when that wage was below life sustaining levels. Workers who became too sick or weak to continue to work could always be replaced by others, willing to take whatever was offered to eek out an existence, the alternative being receiving nothing at all. How can people refuse to work for “less than a fair amount” when the alternative to “less than a fair amount” is zero?
The idea of wage earners holding out for whatever the competitor is paying reminds me of an old (very old) joke. A woman goes to the butcher and asks “How much is your ground beef?” The butcher answers “Twenty cents a pound.”
“Outrageous!” the woman replies, “Schmidt down the street has it for ten cents!”.
“Well why don’t you go buy it from Schmidt then?” the butcher asks.
“Because he doesn’t have any more!”
“Well, when I don’t have any more, I sell it for five cents a pound”, the butcher declares.
Why would I work for Company A at $2 when Company B pays $8? Because Company B isn’t hiring!
If you mean these amazing change in human nature whereby those who have will be self motivated to share equitably with those who have less, and will pay livable wages when they could get away with paying less, and will reduce their own profit margins to do so, in contrast to all of history under every different economic and social system that human animals have ever tried – if you really believe this will be true tomorrow, in the bright new Libertarian Gold Standard world you want to bring us, I remain unconvinced by your rhetoric and unimpressed with your authorities. And I don’t want your newsletter.
This quote is a fake. Franklin never said any such thing. Ha.
Another fake. Ha Ha.
Actually, there’s plenty of doubt, since what you claim to be “words of the founders” are actually bogus nonsense that you copied from libertarian websites without first checking whether they were genuine. Does anyone doubt that if we checked the rest of your ‘quotes from the founders’, we’d find them to be fakes as well? In any case, now that I’ve exposed the truth about the first two, are you still going to claim that none of your facts have been debunked?
You’re going to have to try a lot harder.
Okay, so let me get this straight. You admit that the amount physical stuff that an average American has in vastly greater than in any previous decade, which is good, since there’s no point in denying it. Then you try telling me that the amount of stuff we have doesn’t matter, and that the only thing that matters is “the rate of development and the growth in the market”. Why? As a human being, it is vitally important to me that I have a home, car, clothing, food, electricity, health care and other basics. It is also important to me that those around me have the same. As long as I and my fellows have those things, there’s no reason for me to care about “development” or “growth”. I’d be happy to stay at my current level of prosperity for the rest of my life. The growth of the U. S. economy does not matter to me.
That said, your claim that “the highest levels of growth” were in the late 19th century and after WWII until the late 60’s is flatly false. It doesn’t matter whether you’re measuring economic growth by GDP, average wages, stock market, or anything else. The highest rate of growth in American history was from 1980-2010 as compared to any other 30-year period. The end of the 19th century was not a particularly good time economically, but as you’ve been shown information about that already (see post 255) there’s no need to repeat it here.
I don’t believe that most of the things you say in this paragraph are true. Please provide cites from a reliable source.
Based on the fact that the typical American today has a better house, better car, more and better food, health care, more college education, and more of nearly anything that he or she wants than at any previous time. Do you deny it?
We have? Really? Let’s take productivity. What’s the average productivity of a worker today? What was it back when we had a gold standard? Nuff’ said.
In any case, you don’t get to define “true wealth” for everybody. I think that “true wealth” is when the ordinary members of society have their needs and wants met. Today we have that sort of wealth. In the era of the gold standard we did not. If you want to whine about the fact that our homes and food and so forth aren’t being made in the proper, Austrian School way, you’re free to do so, but most people care about having homes and food rather than about obeying dead economists whose names sound like mad scientists.
So, to summarize, I stand by my original statement that “We have much more prosperity than we used to have. Even after the recent economic troubles, we are still vastly wealthier than we were in the era of the gold standard.” Your response to this claim was to try making up your own definition of “wealth” and by making a bunch of bogus claims that you can’t support. You have not provided any meaningful response.
I only responded because he brought it up yet again, and he acted as if residence in California gave some special diversity cred. As a Californian, I felt I had to respond to this.
Yet they found it prudent not to codify that in the Constitution. The Constitution represents a consensus of the founders; they all agreed that the non-consensual quartering of soldiers in private homes was bad, so it was in the Constitution.
It really doesn’t make any difference if you can produce some quotes by some founders against a personal income tax. They saw the wisdom in allowing the Congress to decide how to tax and spend. If there had been a consensus against a personal income tax, it would have been proscribed in the Constitution. Since there is not, it is pointless to go on and on about the imagination of the founders.
What they imagined is not law; the Constitution is, and you either abide by it, change it, or abandon it. You seem to want it both ways. You profess allegiance to the Constitution when it is convenient, but when it stands in the way of your agenda and you are unable to change it through the political process, you claim violating the law is acceptable. I find that kind of expediency uncompelling as an argument for your ideology.
Well - I addressed some of this in an earlier post. But I had to address this again since you keep bringing it up.
First - it’s true that 2 UCLA economists wrote a paper blaming the depression on FDR. However, it’s also true that their paper is complete bunk. In short, they argue that, had FDR not messed about with all his bad policies, the US economy would have fully recovered by 1936 - within 4 years of FDR entering office. Sadly, say the authors, FDR did mess with the economy, and so the Depression dragged on. Unfortunately, it turns out that the growth rates necessary for a recovery by 1936 (which the authors claim would have happened otherwise) would have been totally unprecedented. This site (Note: This is a lefty site - so beware) does a good job of addressing many of the “papers” key points - and even has a chart with numbers and data and stuff. The money line is here:
So, while not specifically stating it, your site is arguing that, had FDR not messed stuff up, the US would have seen 4 years of the greatest growth in all of history. Since the US did not see 4 years of the greatest growth in all of history, FDR’s policies must have been bad. I’m afraid I can’t really subscribe to this theory.
Your second site relies on the word of an anonymous economist, listed only as WOMAN in the transcript. So not much to address there.
Your third site is to mises.org again - which is getting a bit circular.
I will, however, applaud the return of the Op, who has quite a task ahead.
It wasn’t fair to ask you to stop, and stopping others will make it no more fair. If the mods feel this is unproductive on the part of others, that is their perogative, they will say so, and then I will stop too.
Actually it’s closer to $1200 an ounce, but I won’t belabor the point. Putting the price near $1300 an ounce is a lot closer to being true than most of what you say.
You say that the “value” of currency is determined by the price of gold, but who gave you the authority to decide that? The vast majority of people who have ever lived have not cared about gold, and even today, if a typical household owns any gold at all, it’s just a few baubles. Gold is good for nothing other than looking pretty. (And a tiny number of technical applications.) So who cares about gold. I’d say that basics like food and clothing are a much better way to measure value.
Also, let’s look at your claim that “the price of gold is virtually flat”. No it isn’t. Click on your own graph. The price of gold, as compared to oil, goes up and down by well over 50% many times. It is neither flat nor virtually flat nor anywhere close to flat. Come on, j, you’re making this too easy for me.
Bottom line, though, is that the graph only gives you seven years of history. As I’ve already pointed out, if you look at the price of gold from 1980 to the 1995 it lost almost 75% of its value. If you think that looking at graphs of gold v. oil over time is a good way to gauge gold’s stability, then give me a graph of gold v. oil that covers those years. Until you’re willing to acknowledge that the value of gold has dropped dramatically in the past, I’m going to assume that you have no real answer to my third criticism.
Of course what would really happen is that Schmidt and the other butcher would get together and decide that both would sell at a dollar a pound, and work together to drive any new competitors who tried to sell for less out of business.
To answer the first question: yes. To answer the third: Most, not all. Two answer the second: various psychologists have disagreed about it.
Okay, I’ve read it. That article is from four years ago. I guess you must feel pretty embarrassed having tried to cite it as proof about the current inflation rate. Maybe next time you try to cite something about current statistics you’ll check the date first. Ha Ha. Ha ha ha. Ha ha ha ha ha.
Here’s a cite for the current inflation rate.
Let’s consider a sentence: “mice are larger than elephants”. Most would agree that it’s false, but someone might say it’s true because they defined ‘mice’ as 6-ton animals with trunks, tusks, and huge ears, while defining ‘elephants’ as tiny animals with whiskers that like cheese. The point is that any sentence can be true if you use bogus definitions. But of course if you have to use bogus definitions to make a sentence true, then the sentence actually is, by sane standards, false.
Inflation is a “sustained rise in prices”, and you can check this in any dictionary. If Ludwig von Mises gave a different definition for inflation, then his definition is wrong. I guess you should feel pretty embarrassed about being suckered by a wrong definition. Heck, that’s almost as embarrassing as using a cite from 2006 as proof about today’s inflation rate.
Have I ever denied it?
No it is not. The definition of inflation is price increases, not increases in the monetary base. You’re the one who needs to get this into your head.
Originally you said that we were in a period of hyperinflation. Now it appears that you’ve retreated to the claim that we’re going to have hyperinflation in the future. Does this mean that you’re admitting that your original statement was wrong? If so, good on you. If you were willing to make similar admissions about everything else you’ve said, you might actually get a little respect around here.
Like I said earlier, your definition of inflation is wrong. Mine is right. Look in the dictionary if you don’t believe me.
What makes you think that I missed it? Please be specific.
Yes, given the true definition of inflation as “sustained rise in prices”, I am sure that I want to claim we don’t have it. Inflation is at a historic low right now and we are teetering on the edge of a deflationary spiral. As for your insistence that prices will rise, go right on saying and those of us who have a connection to economic reality will go right on ignoring you.
You, in your opening salvo, said: “Monopolies in a free market are traditionally very rare and almost never occur.” Then when I point out a long list of monopolies in the USA in the 19th century, which you’ve listed many times as a free economy, you say that it wasn’t a free economy after all. Are you hoping we won’t notice that you’re constantly posting new “facts” that contradict your original “facts”?
Are you standing by your claim that “Monopolies in a free market are traditionally very rare and almost never occur”? If so, explain why I should believe it in light of the examples already cited. The trusts such as Standard Oil that took over industries in the late 19th century were not backed by the government. They were corporations that grew large enough to gobble up their competitors, sometimes using force when other tactics failed. They are a clear example of the fact that monopolies do exist in free economies, and plentiful other examples can be found in other countries.
Okay, I’ve read the excerpt and it provides nothing to back you up in this debate. If anything it serves to prove the point that the conditions of the working poor were awful in the 19th century, prior to the time when the government stepped in to save them. It uses the word “deplorable” to describe conditions of factory workers. Other than that, of course, it’s so obvious that I don’t know why I should bother point out that the entire excerpt has barely any footnotes to back up its bizarre, untrue claims.
You have a real problem with cites. Considering all the threads you’ve started, about half your links go to someone explain why blacks, Jews, or Mexicans should be exterminated and the other half go to things that don’t have any relationship to what you claim they say, or even say the opposite of what you’re claiming. Your inability to provide any decent sources to back up any of your claims would be hilarious enough even without your ludicrous boasting about your own intellectual dominance.
Before you showed up on this board I sort of dismissed the Austrian school of economics as a sideshow, wrong, but no more wrong than any other group of economists. Now, thanks to your efforts, I am convinced that their policies are utterly crazy and that their supporters are driven mainly by racism.
Let’s go back to the issue of inflation for one moment. I note with a distinct lack of surprise that you skipped over one of my questions, apparently hoping that I and other readers wouldn’t notice. I asked you this: I look in the window of any bank and see long-term bonds going for rates of 2% or 3%. If there’s actually going to be significant inflation in the near future, why aren’t investors driving those rates up? If you’re going to brag about how you responded to every question, you need to answer that one.
Its not right wing. Its the Constitution. Its following the advice of the founders. Its protecting individual liberty. Its being antiwar except when we are attacked. Its balancing the budget and providing checks and balances to prevent abuses.
Its only radical to a mind that has been utterly brainwashed by statist propaganda. The greatest minds of the last five hundred years have written and spoken eloquently about the value of human liberty and the necessity to restrain the power of government from abusing the natural rights (or God given rights, if you are religious) of the people.
I do understand the Tragedy of the Commons and it is frequently given as a justification for government control. The fact you seem to be missing is that a libertarian doesn’t believe in no government. There is a definite role for government in enforcing contracts, protecting the environment, preventing corporate abuse, etc. If people are free, they don’t have to be selfish! That is what so many liberals fail to understand. I say that rights are individual, not collective. People should help the poor and local governments and state governments should have a much larger role in these matters.
I’ve beaten the vaccination issue to death already. But will you concede that there is a dramatic difference between vaccinating against a deadly contagious disease and a minor illness that a person is highly unlikely to get in the first place? Vaccinating against the flu? Why would I do that? I don’t mind getting the flu and considering I am extremely healthy and work out every day it is highly unlikely that I will sick.
The only place your argument makes sense is in the case of an epidemic disease where the administration of a vaccine could be seen as preventing devastating spread of illness. Given children dozens and dozens of vaccines before they are three years old is not justified. We’ve only been vaccinating on this level for a few decades! What about the long term effects of giving all these inoculations? We don’t know the long term effects yet.
The medical community has been wrong before. Just as drug companies push unneeded prescription drugs on people, they also push unneeded vaccines. Why is this such a hard concept to understand?
Yet, you would call me a flat earther for urging some caution in the number of viruses we stick in our children’s arms?
The supply siders are full of shit too. The deficit problem is more related to the monetary system and the lack of fiscal restraint on the part of Congress. Keynesians advocate high government deficit spending during recessions and depressions. Keynesian policy leads to government growth, spending increases and increased levels of debt. It is a fundamentally collectivist approach which encourages central planning, which leads to malinvestment of capital, which is the cause of the business cycle. Keynesianism is completely ignorant of the true cause of the creation of bubbles, so necessarily they are ignorant of the solution to the inevitable bust. Nobel winner Hayek pointed out that what starts as a temporary government fix usually becomes a permanent government program, which stifles the private sector and civil society.
Therefore government growth, as well as welfarism and government programs blow up the deficit and lead to the type of problems we are experiencing today.
At the end of the road for Keynesians is the need to CUT spending during a downturn and balance the budget allowing the malinvestment to be liquidated. Because the ever increasing bubbles favored by Keynesians will destroy the budget and lead to a risk of hyperinflation and bankruptcy. That is where we are today.
The idea that I should excuse this lunacy because the Republicans were bad too is ignorant.
Is labeling anything “wing nut” that challenges your preconceived notions your way of preventing yourself from learning something new? I don’t care if you disagree, but I find it offensive that you label Ludwig von Mises, Nobel Laureat FA Hayek, Frederic Bastiat, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Lysander Spooner, and our founding fathers as “wing nuts” which is what you essentially are doing.
If you respond with a modicum of the effect that I have put into expressing the philosophy of liberty, you may have more credibility. As it is, you simply are putting your head in the sand and refusing to face the facts in front of you.
As for Marc Faber, feel free to disagree with him. He was only one of many that I linked to. Many like Faber have, over the last several decades, correctly understood the only possible destination for our economy unless we radically change policy, which is unlikely. So if he, or other economists, are forecasting hyperinflation and the destruction of our economy, we should pay attention. The fact that the problems can be papered over with more inflation and complex government solutions only delays the inevitable. Like Marc Faber and others have been saying, we will need a complete overhaul of our economic and banking system in one way or another. This can be peaceful and a reasonably smooth transition or it can be painful and devastating, like the collapse of government and hyperinflation. It is worth thinking about.
How did a political debate about economics descend into anti-vax?
No, I don’t believe adhering to Austrian principles would usher in a Utopia. That would be foolish. I believe it is the best system, that would create the most prosperity and the highest standard of living.
You say, “Who says that what is good for business is also best for The People?” Economic freedom benefits ALL people. Remember all the mom and pop stores and small businesses that are being crushed with burdensome regulations. Hurting business hurts the people. It destroys jobs, makes goods and services more expensive and stifles economic growth. You seem to have some delusions that business thrives only at the expense of the poor and middle class. This is not the case.
Again, like others, you claim that someone who is a libertarian believes in no government. That is far from the case. Government has a very important role in the market. People would be protected. But now, government protects corporations. Its one thing to favor the use of government to prosecute fraud and abuse or to protect the environment. Its completely something else to favor government involvement in every aspect of law abiding citizens lives, which is what we have today.
We want government to protect the free market and insure that there IS a free market, preventing cronyism, illegal activity and enforcing contracts. Making sure there is free entry into any market, so that small companies could compete with the big companies. Government facilitates free economic activity among the citizens. It is not anarchy.
Yeah, I know how a loan works. My point is why do we have to contract out the right to print our money to a private entity which then charges interest for the service? Even without a gold standard, our government could print the money itself and cut out the middle man, eliminating the need to pay interest to the bankings.
How is that not reasonable? I was ONLY talking about the interest our government pays to the Federal Reserve bankers. Of course all other businesses could get loans and charge interest, etc.
You should actually know what I am talking about before you cast judgments on my statements.