patrick.net

indigenous says

What in God's Green Acres does Money Velocity have to do with debating whether productivity or bargaining power as the key to rising wages?

indigenous says

thunderlips11 says

Has anybody noticed the Austrians aren't exactly Johnny-on-the-spot with evidence, statistical or otherwise?

As opposed to graphs that indicate what ever the poster deems them to mean. E.G. Bill who is the most prodigious of the graph posters yet has 80 people on ignore.

Answered this above. Now I see you just threw it out there. My graphs were relevant, yours were not. When you have facts, pound the facts, when you have the law, pound the law, when all you have is ideology, pound the table.

indigenous says

thunderlips11 says

All they have is "Logic" which flows from bullshit propositions which have little to no empirical support.

The bullshit propositions are called praxelogy and by definition are self evident.

Rubbish. Austrians have a long history of failed predictions based on Prax. This is because their premises are flawed, and they fail to modify their theory with reality.
Where is that hyperinflation that inevitably was supposed to come years, nay, decades ago?

Other inevitable shit sourced from couch-based reasoning that didn't happen: Comets bringing the Aliens to save the World, the Return of Jesus, the "Superpredators" of the 90s (crime rate instead nosedived), and Perfect Utopian Communism and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

Austrians have been beating the drum for hyperinflation since not just 2000, or 2008, but from at least the late 70s. It's always "Just around the corner". Eventually, we WILL get hyperinflation at some point in the next century or so - but since a broken clock is right twice a day, this does not erase decades of wolf crying and the failure of Prax.

indigenous says

I find them to be as pragmatic in their examples as any scientist or engineer.

I take it you mean in their 'logical' argumentation, not in their ability to point to any evidence that what they say is true, or coming true.

thunderlips11 says

What in God's Green Acres does Money Velocity have to do with debating whether productivity or bargaining power as the key to rising wages?

"God's Green Acres" you don't hear that phrase often.

As to the other:

INVESTOPEDIA EXPLAINS 'VELOCITY OF MONEY'
Velocity is important for measuring the rate at which money in circulation is used for purchasing goods and services. This helps investors gauge how robust the economy is, and is a key input in the determination of an economy's inflation calculation. Economies that exhibit a higher velocity of money relative to others tend to be further along in the business cycle and should have a higher rate of inflation, all things held constant.

Which means we really haven't experienced much of a recovery.

Reality says

Considering the simple rebuttal of foundational equation "Supply == Demand" with basic calculus (the concept of Limit, and Zeno Paradox on flying arrow), it should be quite clear that Austrians are actually better at math than the "second rate mathematicians" that become Keynesian econometricians.

With respect, you don't know what you're talking about:
Austrians explicitly reject empiricism and mathematics. von Mises fills page after page on the subject in Human Action (which I've read).

Austrians are considered by most economists - even "heterodox" ones - to be jokes. The only Austrians in Academia are those who are there by Private Sponsored Chairs (ie some rich dude likes Austrianism, so requires the University to make a seat for them in the Department as a condition of other donations - that's how BOTH Rothboard and Herman-Hoppe, both at UNLV, were employed). The last time Austrians produced anything considered valuable by Economists in general was some business cycle stuff back a century ago. Note, Hayek is a Neoclassicalist, not an Austrian.

thunderlips11 says

My graphs were relevant, yours were not.

I wasn't referring to your graphs, as I state Bill's graphs. Your graphs indicate the symptom but not the cause.

thunderlips11 says

Where is that hyperinflation that inevitably was supposed to come years, nay, decades ago?

Been covered ad nauseum.

thunderlips11 says

Austrians have been beating the drum for hyperinflation since not just 2000, or 2008, but from at least the late 70s. It's always "Just around the corner". Eventually, we WILL get hyperinflation at some point in the next century or so - but since a broken clock is right twice a day, this does not erase decades of wolf crying and the failure of Prax.

Inflation will be coming, but not hyperinflation as this always involves war, but maybe. Austrians generally don't espouse to the when part.

You act as though economics is a controlled experiment, it is not and there are many factors that influence the economy at any one time.

The whole western world is going to have to re-balance because of a century of fractional banking, debt, and demographic problems.

The Difference between Prax and the Scientific Method

Prax: Too Math Heavy; collection and plotting of data is Empirical Nonsense, especially if it disagrees with my a priori reasoning based prediction.
Scientific Method: No likely Relationship, no likely Correlation. However, research should be repeated and the methodology scrutinized carefully.

Prax: Too Math Heavy, collection and plotting of data is Empirical Nonsense, especially if it disagrees with my a priori reasoning based prediction.
Scientific Method: Strong potential relationship, likely a Correlation. However, research should be repeated and the methodology scrutinized carefully.

So once again you would like to dismiss mathematics as it too is a priori...

Reality says

LOL, in other words you are endorsing Praxeology:

Nope. Prax solely relies on couch-based a priori reasoning. Empiricism need not apply.

Reality says

1. Correlation does not equate to Causation;

Correlation does not necessarily equate to Causation, but where there is smoke, there is usually fire. Correlation leading to Causality is the heart of many, if not most, basic Science Theories. "Gee, isn't it odd that this moldy green stew has overtaken all the Staph bacteria I had in this petri dish. Naaah, just a coincidence. I won't bother exploring if there's a connection - I'll just dump this Penicillium rubens moldy mush down the sink."

What you mean to say is that Correlation doesn't imply causation. But it's a great place to start.

Reality says

2. Many social and human behavioral phenomena are not isolatable or repeatable, therefore the method applied to repeatable hard sciences do not necessarily apply to social phenomena. Your need for additional research/reasoning despite strong correlation is in essence resorting to a priori reasoning.

However, accumulating and comparing data is still superior to couch-based a priori reasoning. Especially when the predicted outcome of that couch based reasoning consistently fails to materialize - like hyper-inflation.

Refusal to measure generally because many measurements aren't perfect (even though many are damn good) is a dumb idea.

Reality says

BTW, it's utter nonsense to call Austrians weak at math

They may or may not be weak at it - but they despise it's use.

Without Mathematics, Statistical Correlation (however flawed), or any Empiricism, how do you Falsify Austrianism?

And that, of course, if why Austrians don't like all three.

indigenous says

So once again you would like to dismiss mathematics as it too is a priori...

Is Euclidian Geometry a priori? How about non-Euclidian Geometry? Math just "is" - a priori or not.

(oh, and some things derived from Mathematical a priori reasoning don't exist in reality, like perfect circles)

Correlation and Causality, Feh!

What they're not showing is the number of people who died from Guillain Barre syndrome! How do they know that it's really the increase in driving due to the increased number of Automobiles that prevents Polio? Conspiracy! Bad Measurement!

thunderlips11 says

Nope. Prax solely relies on couch-based a priori reasoning. Empiricism need not apply.

Nope, you are only proving your own ignorance of what Praxeology is. Before Mises and his Praxeology, the study of economics was divided into two distinct fields: that of Micro Economics (which is based on individual rational decision making), and that of Macro Economics (which is based on (spurious) statistics). Praxeology is an effort at unifying the two separate areas of economic studies. What's becoming increasingly clear over time is that much of the so-called "Macro Economic" "rules" are little more than transient phenomena before people fully apply their rationality to changed circumstances.

thunderlips11 says

Reality says

2. Many social and human behavioral phenomena are not isolatable or repeatable, therefore the method applied to repeatable hard sciences do not necessarily apply to social phenomena. Your need for additional research/reasoning despite strong correlation is in essence resorting to a priori reasoning.

However, accumulating and comparing data is still superior to couch-based a priori reasoning. Especially when the predicted outcome of that couch based reasoning consistently fails to materialize - like hyper-inflation.

You are out of your mind if you think hyper-inflation can be predicted with any regularity based on any current theory. That cuts to the very basis of why Praxeology is correct on soft social phenomena: soft social phenomena are about human responses, often based on personal experience and knowledge of the observer and the reaction-taker, therefore the very knowledge itself would change the outcome, rendering predictions based on previous data incorrect. It's the same problem faced by algorithms predicting derivative risks. Like I said, fools like yourself believing in that predictability are just bad at math modelling.

Refusal to measure generally because many measurements aren't perfect (even though many are damn good) is a dumb idea

Austrians do not refuse to measure, but they recognize the boundary failures in the math models, therefore have much less faith in the math models and conclusions from the math models, unlike the second-rate mathematicians who populate Keynesian econometrics.

thunderlips11 says

Correlation does not necessarily equate to Causation, but where there is smoke, there is usually fire. Correlation leading to Causality is the heart of many, if not most, basic Science Theories. "Gee, isn't it odd that this moldy green stew has overtaken all the Staph bacteria I had in this petri dish. Naaah, just a coincidence. I won't bother exploring if there's a connection - I'll just dump this Penicillium rubens moldy mush down the sink."

So you believe fire truck showing up at a house is the cause for house burning down?

Social phenomena are not hard science like Physics, Chemistry, Biology, and to a lesser degree Medicine. Social phenomena are result of human responses and usually not isolatable (worse than even medicine). Knowledge itself affect human responses. Personally, I believe many social phenomena require much more powerful mathematical tools to abstract than we currently have in math. It's just like Quantum Uncertainty required much more complicated math than that which had powered classical physics previously; likewise, Newton and Leibnitz had to invent Calculus to describe / abstract even classical physics a couple hundred years earlier. The idea that silly pre-calculus can adequately describe and abstract complicated and probablistic social phenomena like economics only goes to show the Keynesians like yourself are very bad mathematicians and bad scientists.

Reality says

Nope, you are only proving your own ignorance of what Praxeology is

Back at you. You are confusing Neoclassical Economics with Austrianism.

Hayek Said in Individualism and Economic Order (Page 73 if you're arsed to check):

(Economic Theory) can never be verified or falsified by reference to facts. All that we can and must verify is the presence of our assumptions in the particular case

Let me repeat that shit: can never be verified or falsified by reference to facts. That isn't the fucking scientific method, in the hard OR soft sciences. It's proof by (deductive) logic. It's Scholasticism. It's no surprise that many Austrians worship Thomas Aquinas.

Here's some more quotes:

Praxeology is the study of those aspects of human action that can be grasped a priori; in other words, it is concerned with the conceptual analysis and logical implications of preference, choice, means-end schemes, and so forth.

ROTHBARD:

While the praxeological method is, to say the least, out of fashion in contemporary economics as well as in social science generally and in the philosophy of science, it was the basic method of the earlier Austrian School and also of a considerable segment of the older classical school, in particular of J.B. Say and Nassau W. Senior.[2]

Praxeology rests on the fundamental axiom that individual human beings act, that is, on the primordial fact that individuals engage in conscious actions toward chosen goals. This concept of action contrasts to purely reflexive, or knee-jerk, behavior, which is not directed toward goals. The praxeological method spins out by verbal deduction the logical implications of that primordial fact. In short, praxeological economics is the structure of logical implications of the fact that individuals act.

Reality says

Before Mises and his Praxeology, the study of economics was divided into two distinct fields: that of Micro Economics (which is based on individual rational decision making), and that of Macro Economics (which is based on (spurious) statistics). Praxeology is an effort at unifying the two separate areas of economic studies. What's becoming increasingly clear over time is that much of the so-called "Macro Economic" "rules" are little more than transient phenomena before people fully apply their rationality to changed circumstances.

Funny, I still see Intro to Micro and Intro to Macro courses taught in any university or college catalog I've ever looked at.

Why have Austrians been unable, with their flawless logic, to convince even a sizable minority of economists to adopt to any of their Praxeological ideas?

Why do Economists reject Austrianism? Why are Austrian-authored texts not found in fundamental econ classes? Conspiracy?

Reality says

You are out of your mind if you think hyper-inflation can be predicted with any regularity based on any theory

Then why do all the Austrians keep predicting it as an inevitable outcome of government (period, since Austrianism is an anarchist viewpoint)?

Reality says

That cuts to the very basis of why Praxeology is correct on soft social phenomena: soft social phenomena is about human responses, often based on personal experience and knowledge, therefore the very knowledge itself would change the outcome, rendering predictions based on previous data incorrect. It's the same problem faced by algorithms predicting derivative risks. Like I said, fools like yourself believing in that predictability are just bad at math modelling.

Explain how praxeology is correct on this "Soft Social Phenomena". Examples please - examples that no other school of economics (or related fields) - could make.

Hmmm, can't make real world predictions. Won't measure much of anything. Insist their ideas are true based on "self-evident" premises.

Color me skeptical.

thunderlips11 says

Correlation doesn't imply causation. In this case, however, we've got reverse causality - the fire truck showed up because the house was burning down. But the fire truck and burning house ARE correlated, no?

Fire Trucks don't often pull up to non-burning houses, and non-burning houses seldom attract fire trucks, right?

Correlation is a great first step in establishing causation.

Fire Trucks usually pull up to non-burning houses due to all kinds of other "emergencies."
Your analysis is essentially application of a priori reasoning.

thunderlips11 says

And yet, the real world experience shows in the 25-30 years since WW2, with a massively expanding government, most of the world (not just the USA) that embarked on government expansion experienced the longest, largest boom in living standards for the average person in world history, without parallel.

And indeed, Keynesian policies immediately reduced unemployment, increased outputs, etc. during the Great Depression the moment after adoption. Whereas deflationary money policies and laissez-faire "Purge the Rottenness out of the System by widespread unmitigated bankruptcies" of 1929-1932 failed to do jack shit, except possibly make it worse.

You are out of your mind if you think Keynes himself would endorse post-WWII expansion of government. Your writing goes to show that the bastardized Keynesians don't even understand what Keynesianism is. Government had to be expanded during war time in order to execute the war. Post-war period would have entailed the contraction of government, as Keynes' own involvement at Bretten Wood restablishing gold standard (however tenuous that was) showed.

Also, what made the post-WWII economic prosperity possible had little to do with expansion of government. The Truman administration shrank government. The West German government went even further unleashing the free market place.

1929-32 Hoover administration did not ""Purge the Rottenness out of the System by widespread unmitigated bankruptcies" like Mellon advised, and like Harding administration actually did in 1921-22 in the post-WWI contraction. What Hoover actually did was forming all sorts of government committees in an attempt to hold up price levels and prevent the market from clearing.

All Keynes introduced was simply a sleight-of-hand: reducing wages by debasing currency, not actually not reducing wages. LOL. Of course, once in practice, those in control of money printing found a handy tool in handing out money to their friends!

thunderlips11 says

Nope, you are only proving your own ignorance of what Praxeology is

Back at you. You are confusing Neoclassical Economics with Austrianism.

Hayek Said in Individualism and Economic Order (Page 73 if you're arsed to check):

(Economic Theory) can never be verified or falsified by reference to facts. All that we can and must verify is the presence of our assumptions in the particular case

Let me repeat that shit: can never be verified or falsified by reference to facts. That isn't the fucking scientific method, in the hard OR soft sciences. It's proof by (deductive) logic

I'm not confusing anything. "Scientific Method" as applied to hard sciences indeed does not apply to the "soft sciences, " which are not science at all, due to non-isolatability and non-repeatability.

Reality says

Fire Trucks usually pull up to non-burning houses due to all kinds of other "emergencies."

Your analysis is essentially application of a priori reasoning.

You can test this in the real world. Set fire to houses and see if the FD shows up. Monitor a whole neighborhood for a time and see how many times the FD shows up in the absence of burning homes.

Oh, and it won't be perfect, but you'll find that Fire Trucks and burning homes are closely correlated.

How do I test Austrian a priori premises and "discourse"?

Reality says

You are out of your mind if you think Keynes himself would endorse post-WWII expansion of government. Your writing goes to show that the bastardized Keynesians don't even understand what Keynesianism is.

Keynes called for spending in a Recession, tightening going into a boom. What he thought of the post-war expansion of prosperity we don't know, because he died in 1946.

Reality says

1929-32 Hoover administration did not ""Purge the Rottenness out of the System by widespread unmitigated bankruptcies" like Mellon advised, and like Harding administration actually did in 1921-22 in the post-WWI contraction. What Hoover actually did was forming all sorts of government committees in an attempt to hold up price levels and prevent the market from clearing.

It did nothing. As has been mentioned on this forum before - perhaps it was directed at Indigenous and not you - that those government-industry committees of Hoover were totally voluntary with no power to compel behavior. Hoover did nothing to prevent bank failures.

thunderlips11 says

Before Mises and his Praxeology, the study of economics was divided into two distinct fields: that of Micro Economics (which is based on individual rational decision making), and that of Macro Economics (which is based on (spurious) statistics). Praxeology is an effort at unifying the two separate areas of economic studies. What's becoming increasingly clear over time is that much of the so-called "Macro Economic" "rules" are little more than transient phenomena before people fully apply their rationality to changed circumstances.

Funny, I still see Intro to Micro and Intro to Macro courses taught in any university or college catalog I've ever looked at.

As you can see, without Praxeology, the two "separate" fields cause cognitive dissonance.

Why have Austrians been unable, with their flawless logic, to convince even a sizable minority of economists to adopt to any of their Praxeological ideas?

Why do Economists reject Austrianism? Why are Austrian-authored texts not found in fundamental econ classes? Conspiracy?

No conspiracy necessary: economists do not reject Austrianism per se. However, those want to take jobs at the FED and get paid well there tend not to embrace Austrianism. It's the same reason why those comrades who wanted to have a political career in the former USSR tended to study Marxism instead of other schools of philosophy or economics.

thunderlips11 says

You are out of your mind if you think hyper-inflation can be predicted with any regularity based on any theory

Then why do all the Austrians keep predicting it as an inevitable outcome of government (period, since Austrianism is an anarchist viewpoint)?

Inevitable does not mean at any specific time. Otherwise, it would not be "inevitable" in timing. LOL.

thunderlips11 says

Explain how praxeology is correct on this "Soft Social Phenomena". Examples please - examples that no other school of economics (or related fields) - could make.

Hmmm, can't make real world predictions. Won't measure much of anything. Insist their ideas are true based on "self-evident" premises.

Color me skeptical.

You are acting like the people who vehemently rejected Quantum Uncertainty nearly a century ago. Human social responses are not predictable for the simple reason that you are not smarter than everyone else combined and therefore unable to model the entirety of their possible thoughts and reactions. More people with knowledge like yours or mine may well affect the outcome of their choices. Observer having impact on the observed phenomenon!

Reality says

I'm not confusing anything. "Scientific Method" as applied to hard sciences indeed does not apply to the "soft sciences, " which are not science at all, due to non-isolatability and non-repeatability.

With respect, I call bullcrap.

From "Prax Girl", 30 second mark:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqGqx6fBts0

On the "Science" of Prax:

Unlike the sciences of chemistry or physics, when approaching human beings, praxeology has to employ a method of acquiring knowledge that does not rely on observation, but on discursive reasoning. Or we may say, logical deduction.

Right. No scientific method used in Psychology, never heard of any experiments used in that field.

circa 1:22:

The starting point of praxeology is the undeniable truth itself and a very easy one to remember: human action is purposeful behavior. It is from this undeniable fact that all of praxeology, as a science, is deduced. This fact, or axiom, is undeniable because, as we stated before, if you try to deny that human action is purposeful, you would be acting purposeful yourself.

I won't even nitpick this statement like "Is gagging when being waterboarded a purposeful behavior?"

That sounds like Medieval Theology.

Reality says

No conspiracy necessary: economists do not reject Austrianism per se. However, those want to take jobs at the FED and get paid well there tend not to embrace Austrianism. It's the same reason why those comrades who wanted to have a political career in the former USSR tended to study Marxism instead of other schools of philosophy or economics.

How about academia? How about real business? How come there are only a pitiful number of Austrians outside of privately-funded Think Tanks?

Reality says

Inevitable does not mean at any specific time. Otherwise, it would not be "inevitable" in timing. LOL.

So you agree with Marx about inevitable Communist Revolution? He didn't say when, just like the Austrians!

Of course Rothbard, Schiff, et al have implied hyperinflation is right around the corner, and did so for years and years.

Reality says

You are acting like the people who vehemently rejected Quantum Uncertainty nearly a century ago. Human social responses are not predictable for the simple reason that you are not smarter than everyone else combined and therefore unable to model the entirety of their possible thoughts and reactions. More people with knowledge like yours or mine may well affect the outcome of their choices. Observer having impact on the observed phenomenon!

Praxeology claims that human action is logical, universal, and self-interested. And therefore, conclusions can be drawn from it. And can't those conclusions can be used to make predictions, which come true?

Observation doesn't always interfere with the observed. Sometimes the observer impacts the observed phenomenon to an extant it changes the result. It's not really true that a watched pot doesn't boil, nor that my watching it effects when it boils.

thunderlips11 says

Keynes called for spending in a Recession, tightening going into a boom. What he thought of the post-war expansion of prosperity we don't know, because he died in 1946

Utter nonsense. We already knew what Keynes was doing in preparation for the end of WWII: Bretton Wood and gradual return to gold standard. Your utter failure at guessing what Keynes would have done in post-WWII goes to show that you don't even understand Keynesianism. What you have is a bastardized what-ever -ism that is anathema to anyone with a clue about economics.

thunderlips11 says

With respect, I call bullcrap.

That's because you are full of bull crap. Not surprising coming from a worshipper of a soviet butcher.

thunderlips11 says

Right. No scientific method used in Psychology, never heard of any experiments used in that field.

In case it is not obvious, Psychology is quite unlike hard science: its industrial practice is based on "consensus" in the book called "Diagnostic Statistical Manual." When was the last time you saw Physics explained like that? LOL.

Economics is even "softer" than Psychology: it would be like applying DSM on fellow Psychiatrists because every economist is a participant in the economy itself.

thunderlips11 says

Wow. Do these descriptions sound like science to you?

What's the surprise here? Economics is not a science, in the sense of hard science. Predicting human behavior is just like predicting stock futures: your pronounced prediction and its reaching audience may well affect the performance of the stock itself.

thunderlips11 says

Praxeology claims that human action is logical, universal, and self-interested. And therefore, conclusions can be drawn from it. And can't those conclusions can be used to make predictions, which come true?

No. Value are subjective, and limited by one's imperfect knowledge as well influenced by one's emotional state.

You guys however hold yourselves out as seers; how come you have been unable to make infallible predictions?

Observation doesn't always interfere with the observed. Sometimes the observer impacts the observed phenomenon to an extant it changes the result. It's not really true that a watched pot doesn't boil, nor that my watching it effects when it boils.

You are full of shit as usual. Read up on observation effect. It has nothing to do with pot of war or the pot that you are smoking. Try front run whatever stock you have the inside dib on, and see the result of your front-running.

thunderlips11 says

indigenous says

So once again you would like to dismiss mathematics as it too is a priori...

Is Euclidian Geometry a priori? How about non-Euclidian Geometry? Math just "is" - a priori or not.

(oh, and some things derived from Mathematical a priori reasoning don't exist in reality, like perfect circles)

"A Priori Knowledge

A Priori is a philosophical term that is used in several different ways. The term is suppose to mean knowledge that is gained through deduction, and not through empirical evidence. For instance, if I have two apples now, and I plan to add three apples, I will have five apples. This is knowledge gained deductively. I did not actually need to get the three other apples and place them with the first two to see that I have five. To this extent, the term A Priori is valid.

The problem, though, is that the word is used to describe something entirely different. It is used to describe knowledge that exists without reference to reality. One example is inborn knowledge. Another example often used is mathematics. To understand why this second definition, which is how the term is really used, is flawed, we have to look at exactly what is being said and meant.

Let's look at mathematics. It's easy to see, in the apple example above, that mathematics fits under first, valid meaning of the term. If this were all that was meant by saying that mathematics is a priori, there would be no problem. However, this isn't it. Philosophers then go on to say that mathematics is true without reference to reality. The knowledge of mathematics (as opposed to the knowledge created by mathematics) is a priori. It is known without reference to reality. It is claimed that mathematics is a higher form of knowledge. That even if the world around us doesn't exist, mathematics is still true. That it is a form of knowledge that we can be certain of, even if we deny reality.

How do they make such a statement? First, they see that mathematics is the science of units, and any units are acceptable. I could have said trucks instead of apples above. The validity would be the same. It is true without reference to any unit.

This sounds okay at first. The problem stems from the method of deriving the mathematical abstractions. Teach a child to do simple arithmetic, and you'll recognize that to gain the knowledge of math, one must use some units. Maybe apples. Maybe oranges. It doesn't matter which units. It does matter, though, that some unit is picked. To grasp math, one needs a foundation. Particulars from which an abstraction can be made.

Calling mathematics a priori, or knowledge independent of reality, is to undercut its base. This is the essence of the second meaning of a priori. The meaning that is actually used. An abstraction is made from particulars. Once the abstraction is made, the process from which it was derived is then ignored. The base on which it was built is denied. The abstract knowledge is then said to exist without reference to reality, since the reference is ignored.

In this way, certain kinds of knowledge are said to exist without being dependent on reality. Various explanations for how we are aware of the knowledge are put forward. Some say it is inborn, and we were always aware of it. Others say that although it was inborn, it takes awhile for us to recognize the knowledge. Others decide that it is revelation from some higher power.

The consequences to accepting the claim that knowledge can be a priori is that it leads to faith. When it is suppose that some knowledge exists and is valid without our need of deriving it from reality, it opens the door to pretending all knowledge can be like this. By denying the use of reason to form these abstract ideas, it claims there are alternative methods of gaining knowledge. By severing the tie to reality, it allows any idea to be accepted."

http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Irrational_APriori.html

Lips before you blather on, that does not say that praxelogy is severing any ties to reality.

Reality says

The workers can only get a fair shake if there are multiple potential employees competing against each other for the worker.

Actually, that's not true. The solution I proposed does not require government or the owner to control the distribution of revenue from a business.

Also, under our current system there are not multiple potential employers competing for workers. There are few employers and they have a multitude of unfair advantages that make the worker have essentially zero bargaining power. And that is exactly the problem. A worker's compensation should be determined entirely by his productivity not his bargaining power.

Strategist says

You're wasting your time. I'm the only damn liberal who gets "it"

You are a liberal like the pope is a secret Muslim.

Strategist says

The Longshoremen get $150,000, but their employer only makes $50,000 profit from them.

That's not reality. In reality an employee generates $100,000/yr in wealth and the owner takes between $40,000 to $80,000 from that pot. If the worker is highly skilled, he's only taxed at 40% by the business owner, but if the worker is unskilled then he's taxed at 80%.

indigenous says

Dan if you write another book I will not respond, it takes too long to read your blather.

Translation: I'm way too unintelligent to come up with any kind of counterargument. Also, it doesn't help that Dan has the truth on his side and all the evidence supports the truth for some reason.

Honey, I spent the time to transcribe a large portion of the video. I also spent the time to analyze and clarify what it was saying and the time to prove that it was wrong using real evidence. What I wrote takes less time to read than the video takes to watch. So quite whining about how much work it takes to support your position. If your position isn't worth taking the time to defend, it's a weak position.

Strategist says

Dan, you need to post quality, not quantity.

Those aren't mutually exclusive. Furthermore, reading my response takes less time than watching the video. You are confusing your laziness and refusal to read with verboseness. My arguments are as concise and as short as they can be. If you think otherwise, feel free to show a shorter version of those arguments that do not diminish their specificness, detail, or completeness.

indigenous says

Oh hello Wogster yea I was AFK. But I'm back for a few minutes and will be happy to bitch slap you and the other mutts around the forum.

If you would spend half the time and effort attacking your opponents' arguments rather than them, well, you'd still lose because your position sucks, but at least it wouldn't be as humiliating of a defeat.

Call it Crazy says

Go take a look at the comments on the Youtube page where the video is posted... Many comments there destroy his narrative, saving me the time...

None of the comments on the YouTube page address my comments.

Call it Crazy says

Maybe, just maybe, you and Dan can learn something about capitalism and business. Here's the link, go scroll the comments:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFbYM2EDz40#t=410

Funny how you don't mind YouTube links all of a sudden. Hypocrisy much?

Dan8267 says

Honey, I spent the time to transcribe a large portion of the video.

I did answer your blather?

thunderlips11 says

Utter nonsense. We already knew what Keynes was doing in preparation for the end of WWII: Bretton Wood and gradual return to gold standard. Your utter failure at guessing what Keynes would have done in post-WWII goes to show that you don't even understand Keynesianism. What you have is a bastardized what-ever -ism that is anathema to anyone with a clue about economics.

Riiiiight:

Keynes wrote a book against the adoption of the Gold Standard all the way back in the years immediately following WW1.

Yet, Bretton Wood System designed by him clearly anchored the USD to gold, and all other major currencies of the world to the USD.

thunderlips11 says

A lot of academic and business positions are nowadays revolving doors with government/FED positions. The study of economics is more infiltrated with (FED/government printed) money than "climate science" (which is also not a science, due to non-repeatability).

Evidence please.

The most recently retire FED chairman, Bernanke, had previously been a professor at Princeton before taking the FED job;
The current real power wielder at the FED, Fischer, was professor at MIT, and thesis advisor to Bernanke.
The current ECB head, Mario Draghi, was also a student of Fischer's.

I find it hard to believe there are more Economics PhDs working for the Fed than consulting for private business.

That is an irrelevant point even if it is true. At the rate the FED payroll for research Economists is growing, it may well soon hire all PhD economists than all other institutions combined, if not already. It is already by far the top employer of Economics PhD's.

Dan8267 says

There have been many examples of businesses using force from slavery

Which only lasted because of the fugitive slave act (government force), other wise the slaves would have simply left the farms.

Dan8267 says

dangerous child labor

My grandmother had 12 brothers and sisters, back then that was the way things were done as a large family was an asset. It is quite common to see "children" working the farms back then, even throwing 100 lb bails of hay. So depriving the children of working was depriving the family of survival. BTW farming equipment is as dangerous as it gets. I would take it a step further and say that many of the problems in today's culture is from training children not to work by stating that they cannot work until they are 16.

Dan8267 says

exploitation of poor undeveloped nations to the eradication of native populations.

If that is the case why do the indigenous people still work there? Why not just go back to farming?

Dan8267 says

Furthermore, economic force can be just as powerful as violence.

Yup, In some ways you could define money as force or energy.

Dan8267 says

Corporations can control entire cities an do so in China today.

Only with government force.

Dan8267 says

In American history, company towns were common and the business owners treated the workers like indentured servants.

Not for long they didn't, unless of course they colluded with government, other wise the workers would simply leave.

Dan8267 says

It wasn't a pleasant life.

A little context is in order, back then the avg life expectancy was about 40, disease was rampant, you had to work at least 12 hr to survive, you had to work to work a full day for 50 cents as a laborer and a candle cost 28 cents. So your complaints are absurd.

thunderlips11 says

If it wasn't for all those meddling kids, hyperinflation would have got away with it! I thought government could only do bad and no good? Rothbard called for hyperinflation throughout the 80s and 90s too, never happened. Still hasn't happened.

The crucible of a theory is predictive power.

In case you did not realize, fiat money is a purely government product; hyperinflation or any inflation at all is government doing bad . . . whereas keeping the fiat money somewhat "sound" relative to precious metal, which would have been money if not for government enforcement to use something else, is not doing any better than what the market place would have done on its own.

Rothbard predicted hyperinflation would happen eventually ("inevitable"), and would happen quickly if the government and the FED continued its profligacy that characterized the 70's. That was not a false prediction even as Volcker slowed down the rate of inflation with drastically higher interest rates.

Like always, the conservatives try to steer the conversation away from the counter-arguments that disprove their position. They do this by trying to start an argument about a largely or entirely irrelevant topic and hope people just forget that they were caught with their underpants down. So let's get back to the core of this thread by responding to indigenous's poor response to my rebuttal of his argument.

Falsehood 1: Market prices are related to worker productivity.
indigenous says

As to falsehood one, of course the wages are supply and demand. But the China and Japan have rigged the game by devaluing their currency. And the US has let them get away with it through the floating exchange rate.

China and Japan aren't relevant to the big picture. Even 50, 100, and 150 years ago wages were determined entirely by bargaining power, not productivity. And that is the problem.

Falsehood 2: Market prices are determined by a free market.
indigenous says

Falsehood two, the alternative would be a socialist state such as the USSR, N Korea, or East Germany.

That is completely wrong. You are stating that the ONLY two choices are to let the working class people of the world get raped by business owners or to live in a despotic country that uses a very particular implementation of Communism. This is a false dichotomy.

There are an infinite number of possible economic models to use. Throughout all of human history we've tried three (Capitalism, Communism, and Feudalism). That's three out of infinity. If you think it's time to abandon searching the solution space than you are insane.

The fact is that capitalism is a Bronzed-Age technology with a couple of 18th and 19th century refinements. It is ludicrous to suggest that we can't build a better technology using 21st century ideas. Basing income on productivity rather than bargaining power would not make the United States a communist country. That's just a lie.

Also, socialism isn't the same thing as communism. You really need to learn what the terms mean if you are going to use them. The USSR was a communist state, not a social state. Same for North Korea and the former Eastern Germany, which was part of the USSR. You should also brush up on history while you are at it. 1989 wasn't that long ago.

Falsehood 3: People will only work for Edgar if his offer is attractive to them.
indigenous says

Falsehood three, no they can leave the country as with Mexico, China, Canada. IOW they vote with their feet.

Just because the situation is worse in Mexico or China doesn't excuse the problem here in the U.S. especially since the reason it's so bad in Mexico and China is the exact same problem as in the U.S. and every other country. Those producing the wealth are exploited by an owner class that produces little to nothing. This is simply a problem that needs to be fixed all over the world, starting here in the U.S. Once that problem is fixed, you won't have droves of Mexicans wanting to enter and stay in the U.S. The immigration problem you conservatives bitch and moan about is caused by the economic problems you conservatives inflict on our society.

Furthermore, Americans cannot simply vote with their feet as international corporations have ensured that the entire world is run by the owner class. And even if people could leave their country to go some place better, they have to leave behind family members, friends, and their entire social lives. Few people want to do this and none should have to simply to be productive and not be exploited.

indigenous says

The tragedy of the commons is irrelevant to minimum wage. The solution is quite well defined by John Locke.

Again, you are not making an argument, just an assertion. You are not even referencing a solution presented by someone else. Contradicting a person's statement but giving no support for your contradiction is effectively saying nothing.

I have explained in detail why the Tragedy of the Commons is very relevant to economics and wages. I have also shown a great example of how breaking the wage suppression and wealth grip of the owner class got Europe out of the stagnation of the Dark Ages and into a productive new era that made our modern life possible. You have said nothing to address this historic lesson.

indigenous says

How the fuck did you come up with that number? OTOH just other day you mutts were going on about how the tax rate was not 50% but that has no connection to Walmart.

Read the thread in which I stated that. I gave all the numbers and cited every reference needed. I showed all the math leaving out no detail.

And the "tax" I was talking about in that thread was a tax that Walmart, the employer, imposes on its workers before the government taxes anything. Employers tax employees for the privilege of working. This is necessary, but the extent of the tax is now absurd. This employer issued tax has nothing to do with government taxes, but tax is still the appropriate word for it because it acts like a tax in every way.

indigenous says

The inequality is simply because of the Fed creating inflation and the rich investing ahead of the inflation.

Currency debasement is one reason the middle class, particularly savers, get screwed over. It is hardly the only way. Nor is it the primary mechanism.

Paying workers a tiny fraction of the wealth they produce is the primary way in which the owner class acquires great wealth while doing no work and producing nothing. It is the primary reason for the grotesque inequality in our society as well as unjust legislation, war, and violent crime.

indigenous says

But the bottom line is that the minimum wage earners have a better standard of living than most of the rest of the world.

That's exactly like justifying slavery by stating that the slave is better off than someone starving because the master feeds the slave just enough to keep the slave alive.

indigenous says

The only reason that the standard of living improves is because of comparative advantage.

The reason why standards of living rise is because of technological advancement, social progress, and the ability of those who actually work for a living to prevent the owners from taking most of their wealth production away. As for the first reason, you have us STEM workers to thank for the fact that you are not living in the Stone Age like the vast majority of your human ancestors. As for the second reason, you have us liberals to thank for the fact that you don't live in the Dark Ages being ruled over by corrupt monks and kings. As for the third reason, you have us progressives to thank for the 40-hour work week, safe working conditions, and the unions that allowed the America middle class to exist and to build a strong economy. Without those unions, the middle class would have never existed and the powerhouse economy of the 20th century would not have existed either.

Dan8267 says

China and Japan aren't relevant to the big picture. Even 50, 100, and 150 years ago wages were determined entirely by bargaining power, not productivity. And that is the problem.

Why is that a problem? Do you think a professional bargainer would work for free? and workers would be better off if such a professional bargainer takes over all the workers' bargaining power on the latters' behalf? Do you want to work in North Korea and enjoy full employment while having the government appointed union reps represent you in "bargaining"?

Falsehood 2: Market prices are determined by a free market.

huh? Free market price is by definition determined by a free market. Of course rigged markets can have other forces exerting influences. Your solution is more rigging to correct a rigged market place? LOL.

Dan8267 says

That's exactly like justifying slavery by stating that the slave is better off than someone starving because the master feeds the slave just enough to keep the slave alive.

Slavery, with food, housing, education and medicine all provided by the slave master, is exactly what would happen if you get the government officials to decide what the workers get paid, instead of letting individual workers and individual employers exercise their respective bargaining power against each other.

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

There have been many examples of businesses using force from slavery

Which only lasted because of the fugitive slave act (government force), other wise the slaves would have simply left the farms.

You seriously need to read up on the history of slavery in America and how it relates to the sugar industry. Business was most certainly the primary cause of slavery, not government. Business largely controls government. That was true in the 18th and 19th centuries and it is true today.

indigenous says

It is quite common to see "children" working the farms back then, even throwing 100 lb bails of hay.

There's a huge difference between children working on a family farm under the supervision of their parents who want them to live and stay safe and healthy versus children working in a dangerous factory where the boss doesn't give a rat's ass how many of them lose an arm in the machinery, which was a common occurrence. Equating the two is simply a way to ignore the reality of our nation's history and to present a whitewashed image of it. You aren't genuinely addressing the real events.

I suggest you do some reading regarding the history of child labor in the U.S. before you continue to paint a lovely portrait of it. The child laborers in the early 20th century were prevented from attending schools, learning how to read or even the alphabet, and could not possibly hope to get a better life because the factory took all their time an energy. Go on and click on the site I just reference and watch the videos. Only a heartless bastard like you wouldn't be enraged at the exploitation of those children.

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

exploitation of poor undeveloped nations to the eradication of native populations.

If that is the case why do the indigenous people still work there? Why not just go back to farming?

http://www.youtube.com/embed/a-lozc1rFOU

Of course you'll blame that on government, but the government in China is ran by the owner-class, just like in the United States but to an even greater extent. It's the owner class, not government itself, that is the problem. Government, businesses, and workers are all necessary. The owner class is not necessary.

Then there is the entire history of India and the British colonization, rather exploitation, of it. This exploitation was done using government, but the puppet-masters were business owners. Read Tea: Addiction, Exploitation and Empire

The British were slow to take up tea, lagging behind the Portuguese and Dutch, and even the French. When they finally took it to their hearts, however, it became a national obsession. They covered their kingdom with tea gardens and tea shops. The taxation of tea led to massive smuggling, and the loss of their American empire. To guarantee their supply of tea they went to war against the Chinese. Intrepid planters cleared the jungles of the empire - in India, Ceylon and Africa - to plant up tea. They moved over a million people to work on the plantations, where hundreds of thousands of them died of ill treatment.

That's unrestrained capitalism in a nutshell. The Edgars of the world have no problem killing hundreds of thousands of people so that they can afford some obscene luxury. Their yacht is worth far more than your life and the lives of your children.

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

Corporations can control entire cities an do so in China today.

Only with government force.

Let's say we waved a magic wand and got rid of all governments. Large corporations and the owner class would still have armed guards and would use force by violence, by economics, and by contract to impose their self-interests at the expense of everyone else. The owner class would be government in everything but name. Well, that's the situation today as well.

By definition, you can call any organization that has a local monopoly on violence the government. The fact that the owner class uses the instrument of government to use violence doesn't negate the fact that the owner class is the one pulling the strings and deciding when and where to use violence.

The fact is that the absence of government, anarchy, is impossible to achieve. Therefore, it is irrelevant how lovely you think anarchy might be. It's not going to happen. A power vacuum is always filled, whether by waring power structures or a single winner. The question is how to make government do good rather than evil. The answer, in part, is to remove the power of the owner from controlling the distribution of revenue. The very corruption of government by the owner-class is made possible solely because of the vast wealth the owner-class siphons off of the working class, which it then uses to buy politicians and legislation.

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

In American history, company towns were common and the business owners treated the workers like indentured servants.

Not for long they didn't, unless of course they colluded with government, other wise the workers would simply leave.

Again, you are merely demonstrating your ignorance of American history.

http://www.pbs.org/tpt/slavery-by-another-name/themes/company-towns/
indigenous says

A little context is in order, back then the avg life expectancy was about 40, disease was rampant, you had to work at least 12 hr to survive, you had to work to work a full day for 50 cents as a laborer and a candle cost 28 cents. So your complaints are absurd.

And these things were caused by owner-class greed just like the stagnation of the Dark Age.

Dan8267 says

The fact is that capitalism is a Bronzed-Age technology with a couple of 18th and 19th century refinements. It is ludicrous to suggest that we can't build a better technology using 21st century ideas. Basing income on productivity rather than bargaining power would not make the United States a communist country. That's just a lie.

Actually, attempts at government imposed price fixing is a piece of Bronze-Age technology. The result has been disastrous every time it's been tried.

The real solution is in making it easier for each worker to set up his/her own shop directly finding and marketing to her intended customers, because only the customers can ascertain productivity. A worker opening his/her shops is called entrepreneurship. Government regulations unfortunately get in the way of entrepreneurship.

Dan8267 says

There's a huge difference between children working on a family farm under the supervision of their parents who want them to live and stay safe and healthy versus children working in a dangerous factory where the boss doesn't give a rat's ass how many of them lose an arm in the machinery, which was a common occurrence. Equating the two is simply a way to ignore the reality of our nation's history and to present a whitewashed image of it. You aren't genuinely addressing the real events.

There would not have been a child employee if not for parental consent or parental abandonment.

Dan8267 says

I suggest you do some reading regarding the history of child labor in the U.S. before you continue to paint a lovely portrait of it. The child laborers in the early 20th century were prevented from attending schools, learning how to read or even the alphabet, and could not possibly hope to get a better life because the factory took all their time an energy. Go on and click on the site I just reference and watch the videos. Only a heartless bastard like you wouldn't be enraged at the exploitation of those children.

Yet, you claim here:

Dan8267 says

Business largely controls government. That was true in the 18th and 19th centuries and it is true today.

So in other words, it was the parents who abandoned or sent the kids to the dangerous jobs. It was the businesses that told the government to ban child labor. Now we get it.