I am glad to support the "evil freemarket," because it works. Governments can kill millions,arrest people for smoking plants,steal resources, and not be considered terrorist. Sound to me, that government is the terrorist.
Thomas Woods, is a domestic terrorist, like anybody who can use there mind, but he is right.The current fascist state, anybody who does not agree with the government is considered a terrorist or a potential terrorist.Millions of Americans, are becoming labeled as "terrorist," and pretty soon, the entire country,accept for the Statist, will be labeled domestic terrorist.The left wing radicals, and the religious right, are the some of most dangerous groups right now.
In a phrase, interventionism destroys the division of labour by abrogating property rights and thereby linking one man's profit at another man's loss: and thereby making everyone lose, which outcome cannot be surprising when the division of labour is destroyed.
Exactly. I think it is more than simple semantics to put the public first in that statement.
What I mean by profit of power is that politicians are inherently interested in increasing their power with their power; creating a self perpetuating cycle. With this power they can force action. In the market, I did not wish to participate in the supposed monopoly of Microsoft, so I bought a Mac. For all Microsoft's advantage and market power, they could not FORCE me to buy their product.
1)The public is sovereign; there is a difference.
2) What I said was: "Politicians are in the sole business of making a profit OF power." Again, there is a difference.
3) Monopolies are antithetical to free market exercise, thus are temporary phenomena. Unless those monopolies are government enforced. Even then, the consumer still retains the power to reject that monopoly; eg the East India Trading Co rejected by the colonists.
There is no "forced consumption" in a truly free market. Only the government can do so as it possesses a monopoly on coercive power as it controls the organs of force. Wielding this power with impunity and arrogance allows the government to, for example, seize lower income housing and small businesses under the auspices of eminent domain; but not for the construction of roads or schools but more lucrative condos or shopping malls.
The main source of demand is NEED. Wages are only one contributory factor in the ability to meet those needs. The Depression was caused by the exacerbation of a recession. The cause of that recession is, frankly, irrelevant. Bubbles occur all the time, for a variety of reasons, in a free market. The market then pops the bubble and readjusts to natural market forces. IF there is no interference that prevents the natural correction.
If wealth is limited, how is that the world is continually getting richer? Even the poor are getting wealthier. It only seems that the poor get "poorer" because the gulf between rich and poor is growing; which is only logical given the respective starting positions. Markets redistribute wealth not to the few but to ALL who participate in the market. What's wrong with redistribution? Natural market redistribution is mutual and based on CHOICE, not at the point of a gun as with the government
And we have a winner; of which ludicrous statement I'm going to respond to.
1) The "sovereign" has no rights except those allowed by the public.
2) Politicians are in the sole business of making a profit of power.
3) Business can never produce a true monopoly because government possess the monopoly of force. The actions of business are largely irrelevant to the populace since it is they who possess the power of choice. Government, however, can destroy choice and force a desired action.
You are partially correct, however, Alva in that the Fed did not/cannot SOLELY cause a Depression. However, dangerous and misguided monetary policies can certainly contribute to recession and depression especially in the presence of other negative factors.
Incidentally, the 1873 Panic was not as bad as you make it out. It ended in 1879, not 1896. Although the economy recovered slowly and haphazardly until the roaring 20s.
Finally, intervening to artificially raise wages is perhaps the worst action in a recession. O'Hanian and Cole demonstrate conclusively such an action, as part of the NIRA, was the primary culprit in turning the recession of 1929 into the Great Depression stretching into the 40s. It significantly raised expenses for businesses already facing financial difficulty due to the drop in aggregate demand.
The cure then is to stimulate demand without harming the economy. Which means not forcing wage, price and regulations on already struggling businesses; not harming purchasing power by running huge deficits that increase inflation (thus effectively taxing the public and taking money from them); and not taking money from one sector of the economy via taxation to redistribute it elsewhere (with loss along the way due to inherent government inefficiency).
Oh, I see, so that was just a strawman you were knocking around back there. First, it was 'free markets' that were to blame. Then, since they don't really exist, it became capitalism, but -- who led you to believe it can function correctly in a managed economy? It wasn't anyone who understands the concept of the free market.
If you are actually interested in understanding what causes recessions, you could begin by researching the difference between Chicagoan and Austrian economic theory.
That is irrelevant; we are not discussing whether the government has a right to regulate the currency. The fact is that it does do so; as such, I reiterate my original claim: we cannot blame economic ills on free markets when we do not allow them to exist.
Maybe you will begin to see what I am saying, if I ask you to explain this paradox: in general, productivity increases each year, but the dominant trend is always toward price inflation, rather than deflation. How is this possible?
You don't get to redefine the meaning of words to suit your purposes; the government employs force to maintain an absolute monopoly on the currency. Read what it says on your dollar: 'legal tender for all debts public and private.' If you believe that something even remotely resembling a free market can exist in the face of such an imposition, then it will be impossible for us to continue the discussion.
The main problem was (and is) the federal government's coercive monopoly on the production of currency. You cannot blame free markets when you do not even allow them to exist.
Very dumb comment. The Fed was not even initiated until 1913, so getting rid of it could not have caused the 18873-1896 recession. Government intervention only prolongs economic downturns. The Great Depression is the prime example.
intervention and "stimulus" is how the feds are trying to make themselves "to big to fail". the expense and effort to disentangle ourselves from our gov't will be prohibitive. the economy will exist to support it.
I am glad to support the "evil freemarket," because it works. Governments can kill millions,arrest people for smoking plants,steal resources, and not be considered terrorist. Sound to me, that government is the terrorist.
KevZen2000 1 year ago 2
Thomas Woods, is a domestic terrorist, like anybody who can use there mind, but he is right.The current fascist state, anybody who does not agree with the government is considered a terrorist or a potential terrorist.Millions of Americans, are becoming labeled as "terrorist," and pretty soon, the entire country,accept for the Statist, will be labeled domestic terrorist.The left wing radicals, and the religious right, are the some of most dangerous groups right now.
KevZen2000 1 year ago 2
In a phrase, interventionism destroys the division of labour by abrogating property rights and thereby linking one man's profit at another man's loss: and thereby making everyone lose, which outcome cannot be surprising when the division of labour is destroyed.
Nintendomanwill 2 years ago
@ 1:09
but I love ketchup sandwiches
11mc22 2 years ago
I call them hamburgers.
Piscivorus 2 years ago
Obama is trying destroying energy right now just like FDR did food, get ready for the third world if Inhofe is wrong.
deltapunk21 2 years ago
Exactly. I think it is more than simple semantics to put the public first in that statement.
What I mean by profit of power is that politicians are inherently interested in increasing their power with their power; creating a self perpetuating cycle. With this power they can force action. In the market, I did not wish to participate in the supposed monopoly of Microsoft, so I bought a Mac. For all Microsoft's advantage and market power, they could not FORCE me to buy their product.
isamu237 3 years ago
It was a monopoly imposed on the colonies by Britain.
isamu237 3 years ago
1)The public is sovereign; there is a difference.
2) What I said was: "Politicians are in the sole business of making a profit OF power." Again, there is a difference.
3) Monopolies are antithetical to free market exercise, thus are temporary phenomena. Unless those monopolies are government enforced. Even then, the consumer still retains the power to reject that monopoly; eg the East India Trading Co rejected by the colonists.
isamu237 3 years ago
There is no "forced consumption" in a truly free market. Only the government can do so as it possesses a monopoly on coercive power as it controls the organs of force. Wielding this power with impunity and arrogance allows the government to, for example, seize lower income housing and small businesses under the auspices of eminent domain; but not for the construction of roads or schools but more lucrative condos or shopping malls.
isamu237 3 years ago
The main source of demand is NEED. Wages are only one contributory factor in the ability to meet those needs. The Depression was caused by the exacerbation of a recession. The cause of that recession is, frankly, irrelevant. Bubbles occur all the time, for a variety of reasons, in a free market. The market then pops the bubble and readjusts to natural market forces. IF there is no interference that prevents the natural correction.
isamu237 3 years ago
If wealth is limited, how is that the world is continually getting richer? Even the poor are getting wealthier. It only seems that the poor get "poorer" because the gulf between rich and poor is growing; which is only logical given the respective starting positions. Markets redistribute wealth not to the few but to ALL who participate in the market. What's wrong with redistribution? Natural market redistribution is mutual and based on CHOICE, not at the point of a gun as with the government
isamu237 3 years ago
And we have a winner; of which ludicrous statement I'm going to respond to.
1) The "sovereign" has no rights except those allowed by the public.
2) Politicians are in the sole business of making a profit of power.
3) Business can never produce a true monopoly because government possess the monopoly of force. The actions of business are largely irrelevant to the populace since it is they who possess the power of choice. Government, however, can destroy choice and force a desired action.
isamu237 3 years ago
You are partially correct, however, Alva in that the Fed did not/cannot SOLELY cause a Depression. However, dangerous and misguided monetary policies can certainly contribute to recession and depression especially in the presence of other negative factors.
Incidentally, the 1873 Panic was not as bad as you make it out. It ended in 1879, not 1896. Although the economy recovered slowly and haphazardly until the roaring 20s.
isamu237 3 years ago
Finally, intervening to artificially raise wages is perhaps the worst action in a recession. O'Hanian and Cole demonstrate conclusively such an action, as part of the NIRA, was the primary culprit in turning the recession of 1929 into the Great Depression stretching into the 40s. It significantly raised expenses for businesses already facing financial difficulty due to the drop in aggregate demand.
isamu237 3 years ago
The cure then is to stimulate demand without harming the economy. Which means not forcing wage, price and regulations on already struggling businesses; not harming purchasing power by running huge deficits that increase inflation (thus effectively taxing the public and taking money from them); and not taking money from one sector of the economy via taxation to redistribute it elsewhere (with loss along the way due to inherent government inefficiency).
isamu237 3 years ago
there were state banks, government issued paper money, and controls on what gold was worth in terms of silver and vis versa
CommSense 3 years ago
Oh, I see, so that was just a strawman you were knocking around back there. First, it was 'free markets' that were to blame. Then, since they don't really exist, it became capitalism, but -- who led you to believe it can function correctly in a managed economy? It wasn't anyone who understands the concept of the free market.
If you are actually interested in understanding what causes recessions, you could begin by researching the difference between Chicagoan and Austrian economic theory.
theoutlawjoseywales 3 years ago
That is irrelevant; we are not discussing whether the government has a right to regulate the currency. The fact is that it does do so; as such, I reiterate my original claim: we cannot blame economic ills on free markets when we do not allow them to exist.
Maybe you will begin to see what I am saying, if I ask you to explain this paradox: in general, productivity increases each year, but the dominant trend is always toward price inflation, rather than deflation. How is this possible?
theoutlawjoseywales 3 years ago
You don't get to redefine the meaning of words to suit your purposes; the government employs force to maintain an absolute monopoly on the currency. Read what it says on your dollar: 'legal tender for all debts public and private.' If you believe that something even remotely resembling a free market can exist in the face of such an imposition, then it will be impossible for us to continue the discussion.
theoutlawjoseywales 3 years ago
The main problem was (and is) the federal government's coercive monopoly on the production of currency. You cannot blame free markets when you do not even allow them to exist.
theoutlawjoseywales 3 years ago
Very dumb comment. The Fed was not even initiated until 1913, so getting rid of it could not have caused the 18873-1896 recession. Government intervention only prolongs economic downturns. The Great Depression is the prime example.
fzqlcs 3 years ago
proof that Valhala54 is a moron
dudemanbearpig 3 years ago
The destruction of capital does not lead to more capital...
cascadan 3 years ago 7
intervention and "stimulus" is how the feds are trying to make themselves "to big to fail". the expense and effort to disentangle ourselves from our gov't will be prohibitive. the economy will exist to support it.
burnhippiesforfuel 3 years ago 5