Is it not the case that Monetarism is the is the most significant step of central planning? I was thinking about Milton Friedman the great libertarian and became offended. If monetarism is central planing and if monetarism is wealth theft how can some one like Friedman be considered a libertarian?
Is that not comparable to saying one is vegetarian because he ordered 2 ounces of mushrooms on his 32 ounce steak.
cocrucified:Is that not comparable to saying one is vegetarian because he ordered 2 ounces of mushrooms on his 32 ounce steak.
Well said.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
cocrucified: Is it not the case that Monetarism is the is the most significant step of central planning?
Is it not the case that Monetarism is the is the most significant step of central planning?
I'd say that it is the most important step in managing an economy. Preceding that, the government usually has a monopoly on law and defense. This is what enables them to institute a central bank and monopoly on money. Without the monopoly on violence, it wouldn't be able to make any use of a central bank.
I was thinking about Milton Friedman the great libertarian and became offended. If monetarism is central planing and if monetarism is wealth theft how can some one like Friedman be considered a libertarian? Is that not comparable to saying one is vegetarian because he ordered 2 ounces of mushrooms on his 32 ounce steak.
Excellent points.
I was hoping I was wrong. This just complicates economics (for me at least) further. It is a difficult subject to study objectively. I have moral objections that guide me. To what extent do they cloud my vision I do not know.
If I can ask another question. The more I read the more I discover new variables. How precise can economics be when there is always some new variable or causation to explore. I am reading about the new deal and the great depression. Is there a point at which you just accept a position based on more than just evidence, do you go with the preponderance of evidence.
cocrucified: I was hoping I was wrong. This just complicates economics (for me at least) further. It is a difficult subject to study objectively. I have moral objections that guide me. To what extent do they cloud my vision I do not know.
Honestly, it's much better to be confused than to huff and puff, make an authoritative stance, and just be a jerk. I believe that getting confused at points and accepting the fact that you can be confused is a very important part of learning.
Economics (in the Austrian sense) is a value-free science. It tells us that creating a minimum wage where there was none before will increase unemployment, but it does not tell us whether we should institute a minimum wage and increase unemployment. So it is saying "Performing action A will result in outcome B." it does not give a value judgment as to whether you should perform A, but it tells you what would happen if you were to perform A. Libertarianism, on the other hand is a political philosophy and not an economic one. It is not said to be "value-free"
Austrian economics (as Mises described and taught it) is a theory of economics based on methodical individualism. Just as Pythagoras' theory a^2 = b^2 + c^2 for a right angle triangle holds true, the theories of Austrian economics hold true. It is not based so much on study of the economics of countries, and it doesn't draw from the lessons of history, but it is based solely in logic and Human Action.
Of course, there are many variables to take into account when studying any economy. This is why you will often see phrase "ceterus paribus", which means "all else being equal" when comparing two things in economics.
Thank you Joe. That is an excellent explanation. I think it is my weak understanding of the Austrian economics (or any other economic system) that leads me to look for specific examples to justify or deny it.
cocrucified: Thank you Joe. That is an excellent explanation. I think it is my weak understanding of the Austrian economics (or any other economic system) that leads me to look for specific examples to justify or deny it.
I don't know how much you've read or how deep your understanding of these things go, but I'll have to recommend reading Man, Economy and State(MES) by Murry Rothbard, and Human Action(HA) by Ludwig von Mises if you want to dive right in and get a solid understanding of the fundamentals. I'll have to warn you though, they're big books. Most people say to start with MES, and move on to HA, but I just started with HA and it isn't that hard to follow most of it if you take your time. Both books are available in the store, and online in PDF form and in web pages.
http://mises.org/resources/3250
http://mises.org/rothbard/mes.asp
cocrucified: Is it not the case that Monetarism is the is the most significant step of central planning? I was thinking about Milton Friedman the great libertarian and became offended. If monetarism is central planing and if monetarism is wealth theft how can some one like Friedman be considered a libertarian?
Indeed, Friedman is a central planner. Calling him a free marketeer is like saying you`re only a murderer after you`ve killed 4 or 5 people.
It is the largest step twoards central planning, you are correct. However how does this stop making friedman a minarchist? I think that he went through central bank, law, education, defence and roads. This is a minimal government, that's it. He was a libertarian and indeed a pretty raidicle one.
I do not know all the proper terms and lingo. It seems to me that if Monetarism is theft of wealth by the state, a theft is in effect a direct redistribution of wealth from the poorest to the richest, that is a violation of libertarian principles as I understand them.
I guess there can be some utilitarian tooling that says it is a greater good for the poor to have their wealth stolen, but that argument can also be made for all those thing he opposed.
I reserve the right to be wrong.