Poll - When will the FED taper?

[Gumby]

Yes, KShartle, where's your evidence that 2 + 2 = 4? All you do is keep blathering about the rules of arithmetic! 

Yes and the FACT that some people believe 2+2=5 is PROOF that it doesn't equal 4. I know. Using logic is part of my crime.

Hardly.

You said...

The banks won't accept the prices from the treasury unless they know the FED has their back.

And I proved you wrong with evidence from Treasury auctions and POMO data. The demand for Treasuries waaay outpaces what the Fed is buying.

See, that's called using evidence to support your statements. You should try it.

If you're going to say that there is no real demand for Treasuries, at least have the decency to prove it with evidence and not hide behind kindergarten logic.

[moda0306]

The fact the folks on this board miss the forest for the trees on this baffles me.  I think a line in the MR thread says it best: it works, until it doesn't.  Translation: fantasy land.

When you stand one inch from a tree you miss the forest around you.

Gumby and I both realize that if a government allocates real resources (or interferes in the real economy) in certain ways that it could collapse the whole damn thing.  This isn't MR's fault.  Governments have been doing this for centuries.  Usually collapses of currencies are due to certain specific choices and stimuli that have little to do with printing money within a fiat currency regime like ours.  These are either having foreign-denominated (usually war) debts, having lost a war in general (huge destruction of production), vast widespread corruption (taking farmland from white farmers and giving them to blacks), or other very NON monetary events.

A currency, even gold, is only as valuable as the real goods and services you can obtain with it.  You lose a massive war or confisate real productive resources for random reasons and in massive quantities, and you're going to have problems, and maybe witness the ushering in of a new government.  Both Gumby and I suggest carrying some physical gold for this very reason.

So we see the forest, but we see a lush, green, moist forest and you think the torch we're carrying is going to burn the whole damn thing down.

If ours is on the cusp of destruction because of "too much government intervention," then we also have to worry much more about the other massive economies in our world, most of each with their own fiat currency, sprawling metropolis "centrally planned cities" with massive private sector GDP, centrally-planned education/healthcare systems, welfare states, etc.


Saying that we don't have perspective because it may eventually collapse is pretty rich, because most "free societies" (or all of them, depending on what your definition of "free society" is), have either been abandoned for "statism" or conquered, yet we're being asked to adopt this model as ours because "MR is a fantasy land."


Look around you, folks.  What is the "fantasy land?"  A free society, with no government, that is amazingly productive, peaceful, and clean, or a productive, robust mixed economy with a fiat currency, some state institutions we may or may not like, a military, and sprawling beacons of social engineering called "cities."

Which one is the "fantasy land?"

Who's really not seeing "the forest through the trees?"

This seems like a case of the pot calling the stainless steel kettle black.

[Libertarian666]

Yes, KShartle, where's your evidence that 2 + 2 = 4? All you do is keep blathering about the rules of arithmetic! 

If only something as messy as economics were as simple and abstract as arithmetic .

It is simple and abstract. It is not mathematical, but is an axiomatic system, just as arithmetic is.

In fact, wasn't that one of the big lessons of Austrian economics? That mechanistic, mathematical theorems, postulations, and models fail to take into account the diversity and vibrance of human action?

No, the big lesson of Austrian economics is that you can't get something for nothing, and furthermore that attempts to do so by watering down the money will lead to disaster.

[Kshartle]

Yes, KShartle, where's your evidence that 2 + 2 = 4? All you do is keep blathering about the rules of arithmetic! 

If only something as messy as economics were as simple and abstract as arithmetic .

In fact, wasn't that one of the big lessons of Austrian economics? That mechanistic, mathematical theorems, postulations, and models fail to take into account the diversity and vibrance of human action?

Yes that's why they should be taken into account. Ignoring them is ignoring reality. People will do what's in their own self-interest. If you give someone access to someone else's money and no direct consequence to how they spend it they are not likely to be good stewards of it. They will buy wars, monuments, bridges to nowhere, college tution for votes, health care for votes, welfare for votes, etc.

When people have the magical ability to write the rules by which we buy and sell they will be paid by certain people to write favorable rules for them to exclude competition. They will do this for money to buy votes etc.

[moda0306]

Kshartle,

In what "fantasy land" is the government not crucial to the economy?

What about Manhattan?  Should we just fire all municipal workers in NYC so they can "get a real job?"  How about Tokyo?  Them too?

Should we fire all the city employees that manage the sewer system around Silicon Valley?

Should we fire all the police that would come kick me out of my home if I quit paying my mortgage, or the county employees that record and recognize our private property?


Or are residents of rural Mississippi the only "real" parts of our economy, and the rest is just statist, unsustainable fantasy land?


Sorry for the snarkitude, but what kind of massive economic adjustment would it take for government to no longer be crucial to our economy? 

[Gumby]

but is an axiomatic system, just as arithmetic is.

When you take 2 apples and add another 2 apples, you get 4 apples.

When the Fed takes ~$2 Trillion in base money, and uses it to buy ~$2 Trillion of Treasury Bonds, from Primary Dealers — over the span of many months — high inflation doesn't materialize.

So, yes. You are correct. It is axiomatic.

This is what I'm talking about. It would be great if KShartle could actually show us examples where his theories are true. He hasn't been able to, and I don't think he can.

Trust me, his theories do make sense when shouted out loud. But, in reality, they don't seem to ever come true. The evidence just isn't there. I wish the real world were as simple as KShartle believes it is. If the real world were that simple, I suspect investing would be a lot easier

[Kshartle]

Kshartle,

In what "fantasy land" is the government not crucial to the economy?

What about Manhattan?  Should we just fire all municipal workers in NYC so they can "get a real job?"  How about Tokyo?  Them too?

Should we fire all the city employees that manage the sewer system around Silicon Valley?

Should we fire all the police that would come kick me out of my home if I quit paying my mortgage, or the county employees that record and recognize our private property?


Or are residents of rural Mississippi the only "real" parts of our economy, and the rest is just statist, unsustainable fantasy land?


Sorry for the snarkitude, but what kind of massive economic adjustment would it take for government to no longer be crucial to our economy?

Every single function of the government could be replaced by voluntary action and the price would drop and quality would improve. Look at health care vs. computers. The argument I always hear about why health care is more expensive is because we have better technology. What rubbish. Imagine if the government took over the computer industry. Every year the prices would go up and we'd be told "it's not inflation because look how much better the technology is".

Nothing we say or do here is going to affect it one bit. I point this stuff out because the current belief that the US economy is recovering with the help of stimulus or government spending is nonsense. Utter nonsense. It can't help the economy anymore than a parasite or cancer can help it's host. The more we get the sicker we get. We need to at least lance enough of it so we can get healthy again and all the money printing and raising of the debt limit isn't going to help one bit.

I don't think the cancer will shrink itself...maybe it will. I think we are going to need serious radiation treatment.

What is that going to do to the value of investments? That's what I'm concerned with. This cancer can never pay off it's debts. Loaning it money at this point looks like financial suicide. I appreciate that you guys disagree....that makes a market. I just wonder and have always wondered why you think it will ever pay you back in the long run? They are talking today about the possibility of not being able to do it! 


Everyone in this discussion is well entrenched so snarkiness is a given man. Nothing is taken personally by me.

[Kshartle]

Kshartle,

the county employees that record and recognize our private property?

They do that so they know who to tax and how much. They total up the value and steal a portion of it every year or quarter.

It's the exact OPPOSITE of recognizing private property. The complete and exact opposite. This is Orwellian double-speak.

[Kshartle]

Should we fire all the city employees that manage the sewer system around Silicon Valley?

If the city didn't run the sewer do you think we wouldn't have a sewer? No one would come up with an idea of how to make money cleaning up peoples 5h1t?!??!?!

How did anyone come up with the idea for a sewer at all? Was it a brilliant politician? Would people not pay to have their 5h1t flushed?!?!?!

Maybe you or I can't think of a way at this minute. Maybe a few puffs on the hooka and we could. Doesn't matter. Someone else will. And they will make it efficient and cheap. Nothing could be as expensive as anything provided free by government.

[moda0306]

Kshartle,

In what "fantasy land" is the government not crucial to the economy?

What about Manhattan?  Should we just fire all municipal workers in NYC so they can "get a real job?"  How about Tokyo?  Them too?

Should we fire all the city employees that manage the sewer system around Silicon Valley?

Should we fire all the police that would come kick me out of my home if I quit paying my mortgage, or the county employees that record and recognize our private property?


Or are residents of rural Mississippi the only "real" parts of our economy, and the rest is just statist, unsustainable fantasy land?


Sorry for the snarkitude, but what kind of massive economic adjustment would it take for government to no longer be crucial to our economy?

Every single function of the government could be replaced by voluntary action and the price would drop and quality would improve. Look at health care vs. computers. The argument I always hear about why health care is more expensive is because we have better technology. What rubbish. Imagine if the government took over the computer industry. Every year the prices would go up and we'd be told "it's not inflation because look how much better the technology is".

Nothing we say or do here is going to affect it one bit. I point this stuff out because the current belief that the US economy is recovering with the help of stimulus or government spending is nonsense. Utter nonsense. It can't help the economy anymore than a parasite or cancer can help it's host. The more we get the sicker we get. We need to at least lance enough of it so we can get healthy again and all the money printing and raising of the debt limit isn't going to help one bit.

I don't think the cancer will shrink itself...maybe it will. I think we are going to need serious radiation treatment.

What is that going to do to the value of investments? That's what I'm concerned with. This cancer can never pay off it's debts. Loaning it money at this point looks like financial suicide. I appreciate that you guys disagree....that makes a market. I just wonder and have always wondered why you think it will ever pay you back in the long run? They are talking today about the possibility of not being able to do it! 


Everyone in this discussion is well entrenched so snarkiness is a given man. Nothing is taken personally by me.

So I'm assuming that the government would have to actively market these items to willing buyers, right?  I mean you don't want the city of Manhattan to just fire everone and abandon everything and let everyone figure out the mess, right?

In this case, who does the government sell it to, and in what currency (for the very idea that the government would end itself implies the end of the US dollar, so now the government would have to pick a means of payment, which would automatically artificially enrich the holder of that asset)?

Would the government sell all infrastructure to one company if they came in with the lowest bid?  You think a monopoly would deliver cheaper or better services? 

If not a monopoly, and the government regulated who it sold what to, how are disjointed interests going to manage a city like Manhattan?  Tolls?

And if our current system is the "opposite of property," whose to say any property is fairly allocated right now... well the government will be legitimizing it if it accepts said property as payment for the resources they sell to the private sector.  Maybe it should all be given back to the Indians instead of sold to private interests... Who's to say what is fair?

And what do they eventually do with the proceeds? Disperse them evenly throughout the population?


And in many cases, it's only because the government recognizes something as privately owned that there is any publicly recognized legitimate ownership.  A bird has to occupy its nest to keep it. I can "own" beach front property in Florida and live in MN because governmental entities in Florida say I can.  I've been over this a lot... why property ownership is a convenient myth and is not a "natural" right anywhere near how it's been expanded to today.  Probably for another thread, but you can't just kill some Indians, plant some crops, build a fence and shoot trespassers and call "your property" the beacon of freedom. (I mean "you" generally, not actually YOU, Kshartle).

[moda0306]

In other words, Kshartle.

One of us is living in a fantasy land, and the other is not.

One of us is not seeing the forest through the trees here, and the other one has proper perspective on the big picture.


You are saying that your ideal society is far more productive and far more robust (stable/sustainable).  Yet we have mixed economy after mixed economy that is amazingly productive, and no examples of any active free societies that are either robust or productive.

Either there is no demand for it (which is odd considering all your supposed benefits), or it is extremely fragile (odd, because you call the current model "unsustainable" and "artificial").


So one of us has our head in the clouds, Kshartle.  We can't both be right.  Look at the world around us... do you really think your model is as robust and productive as you claim it should be?

[Kshartle]

In other words, Kshartle.

One of us is living in a fantasy land, and the other is not.

One of us is not seeing the forest through the trees here, and the other is not.


You are saying that your ideal society is far more productive and far more robust (stable/sustainable).  Yet we have mixed economy after mixed economy that is amazingly productive, and no examples of any active free societies that are either robust or productive.

Either there is no demand for it (which is odd considering all your supposed benefits), or it is extremely fragile (odd, because you call the current model "unsustainable" and "artificial").


So one of us has our head in the clouds, Kshartle.  We can't both be right.  Look at the world around us... do you really think your model is as robust and productive as you claim it should be?

The cancer can be sustained as long as it doesn't get so big that it is killing the host. Then it has to shrink either on it's own or be shrunk by the market. I hope it shrinks on it's own but I don't think it will. If they don't raise the debt and cut spending instead that will be enormously helpful to the economy in the long-run.

I doubt it though. Either the FED will reign them in by raising rates and saving the dollar or the market will by rejecting the dollar in my opinion. Time will tell.

[Kshartle]

And in many cases, it's only because the government recognizes something as privately owned that there is any publicly recognized legitimate ownership.  A bird has to occupy its nest to keep it. I can "own" beach front property in Florida and live in MN because governmental entities in Florida say I can.  I've been over this a lot... why property ownership is a convenient myth and is not a "natural" right anywhere near how it's been expanded to today.  Probably for another thread, but you can't just kill some Indians, plant some crops, build a fence and shoot trespassers and call "your property" the beacon of freedom. (I mean "you" generally, not actually YOU, Kshartle).

You don't think your neighbors would assist in the recognition of your property? Or your family or friends or business partners or other merchants with an idea of how to solve this problem? The notion that people recognize your property because of the government is a joke. It's the government's property. You just lease it. They force you to turn over a portion of the value every year.

What is this bizzare world where everyone is a savage animal and the only restraint is an organization not bound by any rules?

[Libertarian666]

And in many cases, it's only because the government recognizes something as privately owned that there is any publicly recognized legitimate ownership.  A bird has to occupy its nest to keep it. I can "own" beach front property in Florida and live in MN because governmental entities in Florida say I can.  I've been over this a lot... why property ownership is a convenient myth and is not a "natural" right anywhere near how it's been expanded to today.  Probably for another thread, but you can't just kill some Indians, plant some crops, build a fence and shoot trespassers and call "your property" the beacon of freedom. (I mean "you" generally, not actually YOU, Kshartle).

You don't think your neighbors would assist in the recognition of your property? Or your family or friends or business partners or other merchants with an idea of how to solve this problem? The notion that people recognize your property because of the government is a joke. It's the government's property. You just lease it. They force you to turn over a portion of the value every year.

What is this bizzare world where everyone is a savage animal and the only restraint is an organization not bound by any rules?

That's the world that statists live in. Unfortunately, they insist everyone else live there too, and I do mean insist.

[Kshartle]

The state isn't going away until long after we're all dead. It will generations of raising kids who aren't hit and so they grow up without the misguided belief that violence solves problems.

In the meantime ignoring government's destructive force in the economy leaves you vulnerable when they do things like declare they will do stimulus or government spending to help the economy. It can't help the economy, only delay the collapse by trying to reinflate the bubble.

We have traded a Nasdaq bubble for a housing bubble and now a government bubble. When it pops they will probably try to re-inflate. That's why I stay away from their paper. I suggest others do the same if they have a decent time horizon.

Take on as much volatility as you can handle though. My allocation isn't right for everyone, just me.

[Kshartle]

Would the government sell all infrastructure to one company if they came in with the lowest bid?  You think a monopoly would deliver cheaper or better services? 

A free market monoply can only exist if it offers the most value (highest quality for the lowest price).

As you can imagine monoplies almost exclusively come from government and they are damn expensive.

[doodle]

Kshartle,

In what "fantasy land" is the government not crucial to the economy?

What about Manhattan?  Should we just fire all municipal workers in NYC so they can "get a real job?"  How about Tokyo?  Them too?

Should we fire all the city employees that manage the sewer system around Silicon Valley?

Should we fire all the police that would come kick me out of my home if I quit paying my mortgage, or the county employees that record and recognize our private property?


Or are residents of rural Mississippi the only "real" parts of our economy, and the rest is just statist, unsustainable fantasy land?


Sorry for the snarkitude, but what kind of massive economic adjustment would it take for government to no longer be crucial to our economy?

Every single function of the government could be replaced by voluntary action and the price would drop and quality would improve. Look at health care vs. computers. The argument I always hear about why health care is more expensive is because we have better technology. What rubbish. Imagine if the government took over the computer industry. Every year the prices would go up and we'd be told "it's not inflation because look how much better the technology is".

Nothing we say or do here is going to affect it one bit. I point this stuff out because the current belief that the US economy is recovering with the help of stimulus or government spending is nonsense. Utter nonsense. It can't help the economy anymore than a parasite or cancer can help it's host. The more we get the sicker we get. We need to at least lance enough of it so we can get healthy again and all the money printing and raising of the debt limit isn't going to help one bit.

I don't think the cancer will shrink itself...maybe it will. I think we are going to need serious radiation treatment.

What is that going to do to the value of investments? That's what I'm concerned with. This cancer can never pay off it's debts. Loaning it money at this point looks like financial suicide. I appreciate that you guys disagree....that makes a market. I just wonder and have always wondered why you think it will ever pay you back in the long run? They are talking today about the possibility of not being able to do it! 


Everyone in this discussion is well entrenched so snarkiness is a given man. Nothing is taken personally by me.

So I'm assuming that the government would have to actively market these items to willing buyers, right?  I mean you don't want the city of Manhattan to just fire everone and abandon everything and let everyone figure out the mess, right?

In this case, who does the government sell it to, and in what currency (for the very idea that the government would end itself implies the end of the US dollar, so now the government would have to pick a means of payment, which would automatically artificially enrich the holder of that asset)?

Would the government sell all infrastructure to one company if they came in with the lowest bid?  You think a monopoly would deliver cheaper or better services? 

If not a monopoly, and the government regulated who it sold what to, how are disjointed interests going to manage a city like Manhattan?  Tolls?

And if our current system is the "opposite of property," whose to say any property is fairly allocated right now... well the government will be legitimizing it if it accepts said property as payment for the resources they sell to the private sector.  Maybe it should all be given back to the Indians instead of sold to private interests... Who's to say what is fair?

And what do they eventually do with the proceeds? Disperse them evenly throughout the population?


And in many cases, it's only because the government recognizes something as privately owned that there is any publicly recognized legitimate ownership.  A bird has to occupy its nest to keep it. I can "own" beach front property in Florida and live in MN because governmental entities in Florida say I can.  I've been over this a lot... why property ownership is a convenient myth and is not a "natural" right anywhere near how it's been expanded to today.  Probably for another thread, but you can't just kill some Indians, plant some crops, build a fence and shoot trespassers and call "your property" the beacon of freedom. (I mean "you" generally, not actually YOU, Kshartle).

I've given up debating Kshartle on this topic. He is soo intoxicated on the libertarian kool aide that he is unable to recognize that the messy reality of the world we live in doesn't conform to the formulaic logic that he believes governs human social relations. I'm not sure what kshartles background is, but he seems to believe that human society and economics operates based on simple Newtonian principles. The difference between hard scientists and Kshartle though is that when empirical evidence contradicts their theories, scientists rework the theory whereas Kshartle proclaims that reality is mistaken and his theories are in fact correct.

Fundamentally I believe that Kshartle has constructed his worldview on some very faulty premises. If his faulty premises were correct, then his conclusions might have a chance of describing reality. Unfortunately, this isn't the case.

I'm not claiming I have the answer to any of these complicated issues, but my experience in life has taught me that the answer is rarely as simple as Kshartle is trying to make it out to be. To blame every problem in the world on government is obnoxious and the quintessential example of lazy thinking.

[Kshartle]

To blame every problem in the world on government is obnoxious and the quintessential example of lazy thinking.

I always look for the most obvious source of the problem and the most obvious solution because I'm lazy. I consider my laziness a virtue. If you want to know how to get something done efficiently, ask a lazy person.

[Kshartle]

He is soo intoxicated on the libertarian kool aide that he is unable to recognize that the messy reality of the world we live in doesn't conform to the formulaic logic that he believes governs human social relations. I'm not sure what kshartles background is, but he seems to believe that human society and economics operates based on simple Newtonian principles.

Yeah I live in this weird world where I think people will resist being forced to do things they don't want to do.

You guys live in the real world where you think people will just conform to whatever the government tells them to do and this results in utopia. The "crisis" that we constantly have are because humans are such a failure, a bunch of animals. They aren't because some people are trying to force people to do things they don't want to do.

The only formula you need is the formula that people will do what they want to do and resist what they don't want to do. It's a pretty simple one. Since you don't understand that one you draw all kinds of wrong conclusions about what's happening. You think you're surronded by a bunch of animals that need caging. You have no idea how their behavior is a product of the cage they're already in.

[Kshartle]

You guys see a problem and think we need a law to correct it. That's as lazy as you can possibly be.  You blame the problem on human behavior which is just bizarre. You don’t even examine why people are acting that way. I take a look and in 5 minutes see how the government has created that behavior.  You need to think through the unintended consequences of the law. They will exist because you are trying to compel people to do things they don't want to do.

[doodle]

To blame every problem in the world on government is obnoxious and the quintessential example of lazy thinking.

I always look for the most obvious source of the problem and the most obvious solution because I'm lazy. I consider my laziness a virtue. If you want to know how to get something done efficiently, ask a lazy person.

Yes, but the world isn't that simple and obvious. You cannot do a basic diagnostic test on society in the same manner that you would a car engine. There are waaayyyy too many variables to boil everything down to a simple answer like "eliminate government" and all of our problems will be solved.

Maybe instead of focusing on Government, you should focus on human nature. After all, that seems to be the true source of all of our problems. Greed, violence, anger, ego...were it not for those aspects of human nature there would be no problems.

[doodle]

You guys see a problem and think we need a law to correct it. That's as lazy as you can possibly be.  You blame the problem on human behavior which is just bizarre. You don’t even examine why people are acting that way. I take a look and in 5 minutes see how the government has created that behavior.  You need to think through the unintended consequences of the law. They will exist because you are trying to compel people to do things they don't want to do.

That is NUTS! I have already stated that a plethora of anthropological research has concluded that 25% of male humans died violent deaths at the hands of other humans during the earliest pre-government days of the agricultural revolution! Can you imagine if you had a 25% chance of dying a violent death in today's society? Why do you continue to deny historical reality? Government did not create the human lizard brain. We are violent and dangerous creatures. It is in our nature. We are the single most destructive and dangerous species to have ever existed on this planet....that is not a theory, that is an empirical fact. And Im not talking about recently, we have been destroying and driving things into extinction since the dawn of the cognitive revolution 70,000 years ago. 

[Kshartle]

Yes, but the world isn't that simple and obvious. You cannot do a basic diagnostic test on society in the same manner that you would a car engine. There are waaayyyy too many variables to boil everything down to a simple answer like "eliminate government" and all of our problems will be solved.

Maybe instead of focusing on Government, you should focus on human nature. After all, that seems to be the true source of all of our problems. Greed, violence, anger, ego...were it not for those aspects of human nature there would be no problems.

This is yet another example of a strawman. Who has argued for a basic diagnostic test on society? You have made this up out of thin air, tried poorly to attribute it to me and claimed it's a mistake and therefore my mistake. Please try to stay within the confines of the discussion. It is wasteful of time to invent this stuff and rude to expect people to respond to it.

Focus on human nature? Can you venture an idea of how we stop people from being greedy and violent? If you think people are greedy and violent, why do you think they should have armies and printing presses?

[Kshartle]

That is NUTS! I have already stated that a plethora of anthropological research has concluded that 25% of male humans died violent deaths at the hands of other humans during the earliest pre-government days of the agricultural revolution! Can you imagine if you had a 25% chance of dying a violent death in today's society?

This is called the appeal to anonymous authority (a study concluded), a leap to a conclusion not supported (25% of males were violently killed without government so therefore 25% would still be killed.....), argument by rehtorical question (imagine if you had a 25% chance yada yada yada).

This is nothing but a bunch of fallacious arguments.

Ohhh yeah, argument by emotive language (This is NUTS!) Again not proof of anything.

I've put forward the case that government action is force, people will resist that force and there will be unintened consequences and problems. You have changed the subject and engaged in all these false arguments.

Let's try to actually discuss something and stay on topic and cut out the false arguments.

[doodle]

That is NUTS! I have already stated that a plethora of anthropological research has concluded that 25% of male humans died violent deaths at the hands of other humans during the earliest pre-government days of the agricultural revolution! Can you imagine if you had a 25% chance of dying a violent death in today's society?

This is called the appeal to anonymous authority (a study concluded), a leap to a conclusion not supported (25% of males were violently killed without government so therefore 25% would still be killed.....), argument by rehtorical question (imagine if had a 25% chance yada yada yada).

This is nothing but a bunch of fallacious arguments.

Ohhh yeah, argument by emotive language (This is NUTS!) Again not proof of anything.

I've put forward the case that government action is force, people will resist that force and there will be unintened consequences and problems. You have changed the subject and engaged in all these false arguments.

All action is force, Kshartle. All action! It is a physical law of the universe after all.