Simonjester wrote:
kshartle is correct in his understanding of expanding/printing government and the fact it will ultimately result in trouble, but he is incorrect in his predictions of immanent inflation because he doesn't get the mechanics
Agreed.
Simonjester wrote:moda gumby and the MR group are correct about inflation because they get the mechanics but incorrect about how governments infinite spending/expansion wont cause problems because they don't get the effects of force...
If we are guilty of not being more vocal about the force of government, so be it. It's just something we choose to not lose sleep over. We are really focussing on inflation and investments on this forum (it's not really supposed to be a political forum anyway)
And, by the way, it is possible to have a small government with deficit spending. All you have to do is give every citizen the same citizen's dividend each year and have a small government office to make sure everyone gets their checks in the mail (similar to just issuing tax refunds to every citizen along with a very small government). And you can use taxes to manage inflation if you wish. Will this ever happen? Probably not. Am I advocating that? No. Just saying that increasing state-issued money isn't always the same thing as expanding government. A tax cut is really another form of government spending.
Also, it's incorrect to suggest that Pointedstick does not understand the problems of government expansion. He was doing an excellent job explaining those long-term issues to us long before Libertarian666 and KShartle showed up.
Simonjester wrote:
i think this is one area where the politics or macro politics are well interconnected with economics, well enough to warrant discussion, its not the republicans and democrats calling each other doo doo heads type politics the forum rules and good sense should lead us to avoid.
i agree - it is possible to have deficit spending or monetary expansion with out big government,
But that is not the direction we are headed in.
a few gov employes carefully spending without mis-allocation or corruption, a large and increasing amount of money, is vastly preferable to an ever-expanding group of corrupt gov employes, demanding ever expanding quantities of money to spend, using the harm they have caused as the justification or measure of the need for more of the same...
sorry didn't mean to sweep PS up in my gross generalization "MR group"
Last edited by Gumby on Fri Oct 04, 2013 12:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Nothing I say should be construed as advice or expertise. I am only sharing opinions which may or may not be applicable in any given case.
Kshartle wrote:
PoliticiansPeople having access to a printing pressguns and understanding the consequences to the economypublic safety is engaging in understanding reality. Ignoring it is ignoring reality.
Is this an argument that would sway YOU?
Argument of what? What are you arguing? If you think pointing out that somone having a violent monopoly on the creation of money is somehow similar to the existance of firearms (which can only be prohibited by the use of firearms, making them impossible to prohibt) then you have a false analogy.
One has nothing to do with the other. They are not similar in any way. My disagreement with people about whether or not certain people should be printing money has nothing in common with an irrational belief that humans should not own firearms. Nothing whatsoever, this is a false argument with faulty logic.
Simonjestert wrote:
kshartle is correct in his understanding of expanding/printing government and the fact it will ultimately result in trouble, but he is incorrect in his predictions of immanent inflation because he doesn't get the mechanics, moda gumby and the MR group are correct about inflation because they get the mechanics but incorrect about how governments infinite spending/expansion wont cause problems because they don't get the effects of force... does that clarify anything??
Good thing I didn't predict "immanent inflation" by which I assume you mean rapidly rising consumer prices.
Pointedstick wrote:
Government is just a shell for the people who operate it.
It's a monopoly on the use of force. A violent monopoly. Only people who feel that a violent monoply on the use of force view this as neutral or virtuous. I disagree with them. I think it can be rationaly proven that humans beings belong only to themselves and they own the effects of their actions which extend to their property.
Therefore no one owns anyone else, no one has the right to force anyone to do anything despite what the majority thinks and no one has the right to steal anyone else's property regardless of their noble cause.
All attempts to subvert these truths result in perverse consequences that harm everyone more than help.
Simonjester wrote:
its* not evil by nature... it is an near irresistible temptation to evil and an instigator of accidental evil by nature...
the evil can be avoided but it takes a supreme effort,
*government
When is a violent monopoly on the use of force not evil? When is it virtuous?
Simonjester wrote:
defense of property can be virtuous, from the defense of our borders, protection from enemies, down to the defense of individual property rights, i would choose limiting the monopoly as close to the individual as possible, but i think we are headed in the opposite direction right now! we cant have perfect liberty without perfect people so we have to talk about limiting government in ways that encourages intelligent Independent individuals over mindless dependent collectivists
Gumby wrote:
If we are guilty of not being more vocal about the force of government, so be it. It's just something we choose to not lose sleep over. We are really focussing on investments on this forum (it's not really supposed to be a political forum anyway)
And, by the way, it is possible to have a small government with deficit spending. All you have to do is give every citizen the same citizen's dividend each year and have a small government office to make sure everyone gets their checks in the mail (similar to just issuing tax refunds with a very small government). And you can use taxes to manage inflation if you wish. Will this ever happen? Probably not. Just saying that state-issued money isn't always the same thing as expanding government. A tax cut is really another form of government spending.
Also, it's incorrect to suggest that Pointedstick does not understand the problems of government expansion. He was doing an excellent job explaining those long-term issues to us long before Libertarian666 and KShartle showed up.
i think this is one area where the politics or macro politics are well interconnected with economics, well enough to warrant discussion, its not the republicans and democrats calling each other doo doo heads type politics the forum rules and good sense should lead us to avoid.
i agree - it is possible to have deficit spending or monetary expansion with out big government,
But that is not the direction we are headed in.
a few gov employes carefully spending without mis-allocation or corruption, a large and increasing amount of money, is vastly preferable to an ever-expanding group of corrupt gov employes, demanding ever expanding quantities of money to spend, using the harm they have caused as the justification or measure of the need for more of the same...
sorry didn't mean to sweep PS up in my gross generalization "MR group"
Agreed.
To me, these discussions are really just about how much Gold and T-Bonds we need to own. The discussion of the implications of expanding fiscal policy might certainly be warranted, and interesting, but I have a feeling most people will be in agreement about those expansionary dangers.
The problem, in my mind, is when people confuse fiscal policies with monetary policies and try to use that confusion to point out the dangers of large fiscal policies. The two policies are completely different animals. One is adding ice cubes to a glass, the other is just melting existing ice cubes in a glass (i.e. making them more liquid).
Simonjester wrote:
we certainly have had plenty of long threads over that confusion...
Last edited by Gumby on Fri Oct 04, 2013 12:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Nothing I say should be construed as advice or expertise. I am only sharing opinions which may or may not be applicable in any given case.
Pointedstick wrote:
Government is just a shell for the people who operate it.
It's a monopoly on the use of force. A violent monopoly. Only people who feel that a violent monoply on the use of force view this as neutral or virtuous. I disagree with them. I think it can be rationaly proven that humans beings belong only to themselves and they own the effects of their actions which extend to their property.
Therefore no one owns anyone else, no one has the right to force anyone to do anything despite what the majority thinks and no one has the right to steal anyone else's property regardless of their noble cause.
All attempts to subvert these truths result in perverse consequences that harm everyone more than help.
A government has a monopoly on force in its area of control. What's to say an oligopoly or a "perfect competition" on force? Those are policy decisions.
If force is bad, and unacceptable, and this is logically consistent, let's eliminated it. Any attempt to pick the type of force you like is simply imposing your preferred form of force on others, though.
For instance, the original Union was a sort of "oligopoly on force." Some say it was better, but what if I thought the states were illegitimate political entities and I wanted individual sovereignty? That would mean that supporters of this oligopily were exerting their force upon me. How is this acceptable?
Either organized, systematic forms of force are legitimate, or they're not. Whether they're a monopoly or "monopolistic competition" is a political choice.
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."
moda0306 wrote:
If force is bad, and unacceptable, and this is logically consistent, let's eliminated it. Any attempt to pick the type of force you like is simply imposing your preferred form of force on others, though.
For instance, the original Union was a sort of "oligopoly on force." Some say it was better, but what if I thought the states were illegitimate political entities and I wanted individual sovereignty? That would mean that supporters of this oligopily were exerting their force upon me. How is this acceptable?
Either organized, systematic forms of force are legitimate, or they're not. Whether they're a monopoly or "monopolistic competition" is a political choice.
I think you're right if I understand you correctly. You can't use force to eliminate force. It's like saying we need to ban guns because guns are bad. Well....you need guys with guns to ban guns but guns are bad so yada yada.
None of this is going away for a very long time and not unitl the morality changes and people accept the reality that the use of force is bad.
I am not a crusader for this. I point it out because the better you understand about the destructive nature of the use of force (governments) the better you understand their actions cannot help the economy, only hurt it. Then you can see what a pickle they have themselves in with their debt and see they pretty much have no way out. And theirs no way to profit long-term by holding their paper at this point. - MY OPINION of course.
Gumby wrote:
A tax cut is really another form of government spending.
How is a tax cut another form of government spending?
Spending is the accounting equivalent of tax cuts. They are no different in terms of reducing/expanding the national debt. The only difference is that the government gets to allocate the funds more specifically via spending.
Again, you can technically keep government the size of a broom closet while increasing government spending. All you have to do is send every citizen a check in the mail. Sort of like a tax refund for everyone, but it's technically called a citizens dividend when everyone gets an equal share.
Nothing I say should be construed as advice or expertise. I am only sharing opinions which may or may not be applicable in any given case.
The only alternative to the use of force in society is the use of persuasion.
Persuasion is harder to do than simply coercing someone if you control the use of force in society.
To me, the realization of any kind of libertarian-oriented society requires a deep respect for the role of persuasion in human affairs.
Persuasion requires an open mind and a sensitivity to other points of view because it's impossible to persuade someone of something if you don't have some understanding of why they feel the way they do and why they might not currently be willing to go along with what you would like them to do or to believe.
Q: “Do you have funny shaped balloons?”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
MediumTex wrote:
The only alternative to the use of force in society is the use of persuasion.
Persuasion is harder to do than simply coercing someone if you control the use of force in society.
To me, the realization of any kind of libertarian-oriented society requires a deep respect for the role of persuasion in human affairs.
Persuasion requires an open mind and a sensitivity to other points of view because it's impossible to persuade someone of something if you don't have some understanding of why they feel the way they do and why they might not currently be willing to go along with what you would like them to do or to believe.
This is why I think the only thing we need to worry about when trying to build a better world is not hitting the kids. Teach them how problems are really solved, through persuasion and peacful negotion, logic, reason, win-win etc.
The force can't make us safe, can't give us sound money, can't shrink poverty, can't do any of the things we all want.
MediumTex wrote:
The only alternative to the use of force in society is the use of persuasion.
Persuasion is harder to do than simply coercing someone if you control the use of force in society.
To me, the realization of any kind of libertarian-oriented society requires a deep respect for the role of persuasion in human affairs.
Persuasion requires an open mind and a sensitivity to other points of view because it's impossible to persuade someone of something if you don't have some understanding of why they feel the way they do and why they might not currently be willing to go along with what you would like them to do or to believe.
This is why I think the only thing we need to worry about when trying to build a better world is not hitting the kids. Teach them how problems are really solved, through persuasion and peacful negotion, logic, reason, win-win etc.
The force can't make us safe, can't give us sound money, can't shrink poverty, can't do any of the things we all want.
I agree. Force is what is used when reason has either failed or never been tried in the first place.
Q: “Do you have funny shaped balloons?”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
Simonjester wrote:
its* not evil by nature... it is an near irresistible temptation to evil and an instigator of accidental evil by nature...
the evil can be avoided but it takes a supreme effort,
*government
When is a violent monopoly on the use of force not evil? When is it virtuous?
defense of property can be virtuous, from the defense of our borders, protection from enemies, down to the defense of individual property rights, i would choose limiting the monopoly as close to the individual as possible, but i think we are headed in the opposite direction right now! we cant have perfect liberty without perfect people so we have to talk about limiting government in ways that encourages intelligent Independent individuals over mindless dependent collectivists
Sometimes we get into this disagreement. Some people view defense as the use of force. It is not. Defense is always legitimate because you own your life and your property. If you own it then you have to have the right to defend it, otherwise your ownership has no value or meaning. It would be self-contradicting to say you own property but don't have the right to assert your ownership. The self-contradiction is proof positive that this belief is completely false.
MediumTex wrote:
The only alternative to the use of force in society is the use of persuasion.
Persuasion is harder to do than simply coercing someone if you control the use of force in society.
To me, the realization of any kind of libertarian-oriented society requires a deep respect for the role of persuasion in human affairs.
Persuasion requires an open mind and a sensitivity to other points of view because it's impossible to persuade someone of something if you don't have some understanding of why they feel the way they do and why they might not currently be willing to go along with what you would like them to do or to believe.
This is why I think the only thing we need to worry about when trying to build a better world is not hitting the kids. Teach them how problems are really solved, through persuasion and peacful negotion, logic, reason, win-win etc.
The force can't make us safe, can't give us sound money, can't shrink poverty, can't do any of the things we all want.
agree - and i would emphasize fixing education to teach/encourage critical thinking.... government educated indoctrinated dummies tend to want more government...
Imagine if McDonalds ran the schools? What do you think kids would be taught about McDonalds food?
Pointedstick wrote:
I feel like every thread with Kshartle in it turns into a variant of this extremely frustrating conversation about firearms that I suspect many of us have had:
+100
I heard a rumor that Kshartle just completed a correspondence course from a well known charm school and he will soon be unveiling a brand new silky smooth style of discussion.
Q: “Do you have funny shaped balloons?”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
Pointedstick wrote:
I feel like every thread with Kshartle in it turns into a variant of this extremely frustrating conversation about firearms that I suspect many of us have had:
+100
I heard a rumor that Kshartle just completed a correspondence course from a well known charm school and he will soon be unveiling a brand new silky smooth style of discussion.
It's true. I will concentrate first on points of agreement and secondly on points of disagreement.
Gumby wrote:
The problem, in my mind, is when people confuse fiscal policies with monetary policies and try to use that confusion to point out the dangers of large fiscal policies. The two policies are completely different animals. One is adding ice cubes to a glass, the other is just melting existing ice cubes in a glass (i.e. making them more liquid).
we certainly have had plenty of long threads over that confusion...
Ice cubes and water.... PERFECT ANALOGY!
Even works with "liquidity!"
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."
