Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > Other Topics > Politics
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 10-26-2005, 03:51 PM
sam h sam h is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 742
Default Re: Bush appoints Bernake Chairmen of the Federal Reserve

[ QUOTE ]
In other words, "don't try anything new." If that's your only objection, it's incredibly weak.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't twist my words. Arguments about social phenomena should be grounded in empirical evidence, most of which is going to be historical. I submit that you have very little to support your position. Don't try to squirm out of defending your position empirically with some abstract glance towards possibilism.

[ QUOTE ]
So what? By itself, this is effectively a continuation of the "don't try anything new" argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

You missed the point. Beforehand you stated that we had not had "true capitalist economies" because all economies were marked by government intervention. I was merely pointing out that this has never been part of the accepted definition of capitalism. If you want to get serious about arguing about these things, you have to be using concepts in a clear way. Usually this means adhering to some semblance of the definitions that have been in common currency among social thinkers for generations. If you want to redefine "capitalism" in your own way, go ahead, but its rather counter-productive.

[ QUOTE ]
Or still continuing, depending on how you look at it. "Full commodification" cannot occur as long as governments continue to interfere in markets. Your "real" capitalism has not yet been achieved.

[/ QUOTE ]

Read the post again. I said "more or less" fully commodified.

But let's not get side-tracked. I still want to see your empirical evidence and full argument for the contemporary viability of a system of exchange beyond the level of local economies that is not government sponsored or supported. Please don't dodge the question any longer.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 10-26-2005, 05:24 PM
FishHooks FishHooks is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 596
Default Re: Bush appoints Bernake Chairmen of the Federal Reserve

I have better things to do than create a tally, actually saying I was going to do that is what we call an exegeration, we use this to stress a particular point, but feel free to look at my responces and count the question marks, and see if any of them were answered, not hard too do.

Also if no one knew what my argument was, why is there someone who is on my side.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 10-26-2005, 05:25 PM
AngryCola AngryCola is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Wichita
Posts: 999
Default Re: Bush appoints Bernake Chairmen of the Federal Reserve

[ QUOTE ]
I have better things to do than create a tally

[/ QUOTE ]

I find this difficult to believe.

Just admit the reason you can't answer the question about the supposed questions is because they don't exist. I don't want to hear one more thing about this guy supposedly dodging your questions when you can't even post them.

[ QUOTE ]
actually saying I was going to do that is what we call an exegeration

[/ QUOTE ]

A what?

[ QUOTE ]
if no one knew what my argument was, why is there someone who is on my side.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure he was just taking issue with what someone else said. But if you want to join his side, that's fine.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 10-27-2005, 12:47 AM
tylerdurden tylerdurden is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: actually pvn
Posts: 0
Default Re: Bush appoints Bernake Chairmen of the Federal Reserve

[ QUOTE ]
Arguments about social phenomena should be grounded in empirical evidence, most of which is going to be historical.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, so where's the evidence that a free market in money will fail in a modern global economy?

[ QUOTE ]
Beforehand you stated that we had not had "true capitalist economies" because all economies were marked by government intervention. I was merely pointing out that this has never been part of the accepted definition of capitalism. If you want to get serious about arguing about these things, you have to be using concepts in a clear way. Usually this means adhering to some semblance of the definitions that have been in common currency among social thinkers for generations. If you want to redefine "capitalism" in your own way, go ahead, but its rather counter-productive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where is this definition that includes government intervention?

Wikipedia: "In common usage capitalism refers to an economic system in which all or most of the "means of production" are privately owned and operated and where investment and the production, distribution and prices of commodities (goods and services) are determined mainly in a free market, rather than by the state."

Houghton Mifflin: "An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market."

Neither of these "contemporary" definitions indicate a needed component of state intervention.

[ QUOTE ]
I still want to see your empirical evidence and full argument for the contemporary viability of a system of exchange beyond the level of local economies that is not government sponsored or supported. Please don't dodge the question any longer.

[/ QUOTE ]

So your position is that since a true free market in money has never been alowed to operate unhindered in the contemporary global economy, it's automatically a laughable idea?

I'm not dodging any question, you're just moving the goal posts. You wanted an example of a free market currency in action, I provided one, then you want more. The fact is that gold has been used as an currency for international trade for centuries, long before any government figured out how to pull shenanigans to steal from people without their knowing it.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 10-27-2005, 11:18 AM
sam h sam h is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 742
Default Re: Bush appoints Bernake Chairmen of the Federal Reserve

[ QUOTE ]

OK, so where's the evidence that a free market in money will fail in a modern global economy?

[/ QUOTE ]

1) A free market for money has never succeeded beyond the local level.
2) The contemporary world is constituted by national economies.

How many times do I have to ask you to give me evidence for your position? You're the one making the large claims. I just want you to back them up. But every time I ask, your response somehow manages to avoid empirics.

[ QUOTE ]
Where is this definition that includes government intervention?

Wikipedia: "In common usage capitalism refers to an economic system in which all or most of the "means of production" are privately owned and operated and where investment and the production, distribution and prices of commodities (goods and services) are determined mainly in a free market, rather than by the state."

Houghton Mifflin: "An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market."

Neither of these "contemporary" definitions indicate a needed component of state intervention.

[/ QUOTE ]

You originally said that we didn't have capitalist economies because they were influenced by government. I pointed out that this was not part of the definition. If I gave the impression, that I thought having government intervention was part of the definition, then I wrote carelessly. The point is that government intervention is not a definitional dimension, and thus your original argument about contemporary economies not being capitalist is flawed.

[ QUOTE ]
So your position is that since a true free market in money has never been alowed to operate unhindered in the contemporary global economy, it's automatically a laughable idea?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, its my position that since a free market for money has never succeeded beyond the local level in the last 700 years, and since the current global financial system is so much more complex than even thirty years ago, that your idea is laughable. Sorry but I don't think anybody who studies or works in the fields of political economy, macroeconomics, or finance would disagree.

[ QUOTE ]

I'm not dodging any question, you're just moving the goal posts. You wanted an example of a free market currency in action, I provided one, then you want more. The fact is that gold has been used as an currency for international trade for centuries, long before any government figured out how to pull shenanigans to steal from people without their knowing it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You provided one and I asked if you could provide others that extended beyond the local level and existed during the capitalist era. You have consistently dodged that question since.

If you want to know why government-sponsored money is necessary for the efficiency of complex economies, I suggest you start reading about institutional economics and the theory of transaction costs.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 10-27-2005, 11:42 AM
tylerdurden tylerdurden is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: actually pvn
Posts: 0
Default Re: Bush appoints Bernake Chairmen of the Federal Reserve

[ QUOTE ]
1) A free market for money has never succeeded beyond the local level.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's obviously wrong. Gold exclusively was used for international trade until very recently, even when governments forced fiat currencies to be used internally.

[ QUOTE ]
2) The contemporary world is constituted by national economies.

[/ QUOTE ]

So?

[ QUOTE ]
You originally said that we didn't have capitalist economies because they were influenced by government. I pointed out that this was not part of the definition. If I gave the impression, that I thought having government intervention was part of the definition, then I wrote carelessly. The point is that government intervention is not a definitional dimension, and thus your original argument about contemporary economies not being capitalist is flawed.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, if the concept of government intervention is not integral to the definition of capitalism, why is my statement that true capitalism *excludes* government intervention false? You're making a logical leap that you can't justify.
[ QUOTE ]
No, its my position that since a free market for money has never succeeded beyond the local level in the last 700 years,

[/ QUOTE ]

False.

[ QUOTE ]
and since the current global financial system is so much more complex than even thirty years ago, that your idea is laughable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is the complicated nature of it incompatible with a free market? It's complicated *because* a free market is being prevented.

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry but I don't think anybody who studies or works in the fields of political economy, macroeconomics, or finance would disagree.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would disagree with what? That financial markets are complicated? I don't dispute that.

[ QUOTE ]
If you want to know why government-sponsored money is necessary for the efficiency of complex economies, I suggest you start reading about institutional economics and the theory of transaction costs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, you're seriously going to argue that government-directed currencies can create more efficient markets than free-market money? Government-directed currencies make it easier for established powers (namely, government itself) maintain their power. That's why governments employ them.

If government directed currencies were unambiguously "better" (i.e. more efficient) than free market currencies, there would be no need to impose them - the markets would demand them voluntarily. Things like paper money, fractional reserve banking, and the federal reserve wouldn't have to be shoved down the throats of the people by force.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 10-27-2005, 12:10 PM
FishHooks FishHooks is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 596
Default Re: Bush appoints Bernake Chairmen of the Federal Reserve

It might be hard to believe mr. 5000 posts, but some people dont have time to spend every second of their day on this forum.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 10-27-2005, 09:47 PM
sam h sam h is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 742
Default Re: Bush appoints Bernake Chairmen of the Federal Reserve

[ QUOTE ]
Why is the complicated nature of it incompatible with a free market? It's complicated *because* a free market is being prevented….Would disagree with what? That financial markets are complicated? I don't dispute that… Wait, you're seriously going to argue that government-directed currencies can create more efficient markets than free-market money? Government-directed currencies make it easier for established powers (namely, government itself) maintain their power. That's why governments employ them.

If government directed currencies were unambiguously "better" (i.e. more efficient) than free market currencies, there would be no need to impose them - the markets would demand them voluntarily. Things like paper money, fractional reserve banking, and the federal reserve wouldn't have to be shoved down the throats of the people by force.


[/ QUOTE ]

Let me stop screwing around and be straight with you PVN. Your ideas are basically bush league. Beyond the comfortable confines of internet message boards filled with dilettantes who believe they have the world figured out, there are legions of smart people who have devoted their lives to thinking about these issues. To my knowledge, they’ve almost unanimously decided against your position. Does that surprise you? Almost every economist accepts at this point that government institutions such as national currencies, as well as others such as property rights, have historically reduced transaction costs and paved the way for more efficient and faster growing economies and that these institutions are essential components of contemporary economies.

My sense is that you don't know enough about the discipline of economics to even realize this. The fact that you think markets will reach the optimal solution here by themselves anyway also shows that you don't understand in a larger sense what “the market” means to most economists, in terms of its functioning, capabilities and limitations. Basically, you don’t seem to understand the idea of a collective action problem, the idea of a non-cooperative game, or the general idea of a suboptimal equilibrium. The social world is a lot more complicated than you think. At some point everybody must make a decision about whether it is more important to them to be right or to be righteous. Choosing the former has its rewards, but it generally entails abandoning the inherent satisfaction many people derive from extremist positions, not matter what type of extremism, since they are generally not viable once you actually dig into the empirical world.

Sorry to be harsh. Just calling it as I see it. This will be my last post in the thread.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 10-28-2005, 11:17 AM
tylerdurden tylerdurden is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: actually pvn
Posts: 0
Default Re: Bush appoints Bernake Chairmen of the Federal Reserve

(ad hominem deleted)

[ QUOTE ]
Almost every economist accepts at this point that government institutions such as national currencies, as well as others such as property rights,

[/ QUOTE ]

If by "national currencies" you mean "fiat currencies" then you can't have both national currencies and property rights. The entire idea of national currencie is based upon the explicit violation of property rights.

[ QUOTE ]
have historically reduced transaction costs and paved the way for more efficient and faster growing economies and that these institutions are essential components of contemporary economies.

[/ QUOTE ]

More efficient... for the politically-connected. And faster growing... when they aren't receeding.

[ QUOTE ]
My sense is that you don't know enough about the discipline of economics to even realize this. The fact that you think markets will reach the optimal solution here by themselves anyway also shows that you don't understand in a larger sense what “the market” means to most economists, in terms of its functioning, capabilities and limitations. Basically, you don’t seem to understand the idea of a collective action problem, the idea of a non-cooperative game, or the general idea of a suboptimal equilibrium. The social world is a lot more complicated than you think.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a lot of self-righteous bluster here but no actual argument. "It won't work because things are more complicated than I think you think they are" is not very convincing.

Regardless of what "most economists" think "the market" is, the fact is that unhindered markets DO reach optimal solutions, and there's no evidence that money is magically exempt from the forces that make this so. Conjure all the "non-cooperative game" and "sub-optimal equilibrium" boogeymen you want - all you're left with is a sophisticated argument for oppression.

You asked for a "contemporary viability of a system of exchange beyond the level of local economies that is not government sponsored or supported." Gold was that system until WWI. Governments may have had their individual names for currency, but if a Dollar, a Franc, and a Pound are all defined as a given weight of gold, they are all the same for practical purposes. Gold was the international standard for trade, and no one government established that - the market forced governments to accept it.

Once governments overinflated during WWI, they had to choose between bankruptcy and abandonment of the gold standard. The results of this have been "stability" for the governments established at the time but unprecedented financial turmoil. Financial ponzi schemes such as the "gold-exchange standard", its spiritual successor, the Bretton Woods agreement, and the disasterous Smithsonian agreement did nothing but create ever-more elaborate methods of wreaking havoc.

[ QUOTE ]
At some point everybody must make a decision about whether it is more important to them to be right or to be righteous. Choosing the former has its rewards, but it generally entails abandoning the inherent satisfaction many people derive from extremist positions, not matter what type of extremism, since they are generally not viable once you actually dig into the empirical world.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is freedom more "extremist" than coercion?
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 10-28-2005, 12:49 PM
adios adios is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,298
Default What\'s Your Opinion of Anti Trust Laws and Their Historical Record?

More or less it's widely accepted that government needs to intercede in the market(s) to keep the "playing field level." The emergence of monopolistic trusts in the late 19th century led to the enactment of anti trust legislation. In your opinion is there a need for such legislation and if so has it gone too far. Obviously if you feel there's no need for such legislation then it's already gone way to far [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.