Hello libertarians (and other strong supporters of liberty and--therefore--capitalism):
I contacted Jeffrey Tucker regarding the idea referred to below, and he suggested I put a post on this forum.
I stumbled upon a way to improve capitalism systemically and to accomplish everything any libertarian has dared to hope for--and more. The only thing that has to be changed is the approach to the money. This idea leaves the debate over having a metallic currency far, far behind. It actually harks back to the idea of neutral money, the concept that first attracted those who would form the Austrian School, and especially F.A. Hayek. It is impossible to summarize it in a post of this kind and do the idea, well, justice, but an essay of 3,000 words at www.ajustsolution.com presents a reasonably thorough introduction of it.
I must warn readers that the key to the idea is a money supply that is purely fiat money. Materially (as opposed to purely ideologically), the problem with fiat money has been that the supply of it can be manipulated--indeed, is designed to be manipulated--by a group of cloistered individuals making arbitrary decisions (thereby subjecting everyone else in the economy to their arbitrary wills--the very definition of injustice according to John Locke, and one that is consistent with my own account of justice). In my proposed approach to the money, the supply of it would be truly exogenously determined: No person, group, organization, or institution would have the means or the opportunity to alter the size of the money supply. Output would in turn be determined by that exogenous variable.
Again, the website is www.ajustsolution.com.
JosephBright: Stephen, correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be under the impression that 'Austrian Economics' is a political program that seeks to establish a different way to organize our current economy, which is why you claim that your approach is an alternative to 'Austrian Economics'. If that be the case, I just want to clarify things for you. Austrian Economics is the science of economics, and once properly understood, you will realize that there can be no alternative economics. It's akin to saying you have an 'alternative' to the science of mathematics, in which 2+2 is equal to something other than 4, or 'another approach' to the science of logic, where the law of identity is false. You can begin to understand how some of us can see such claims to be absurd.
Stephen, correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be under the impression that 'Austrian Economics' is a political program that seeks to establish a different way to organize our current economy, which is why you claim that your approach is an alternative to 'Austrian Economics'. If that be the case, I just want to clarify things for you. Austrian Economics is the science of economics, and once properly understood, you will realize that there can be no alternative economics. It's akin to saying you have an 'alternative' to the science of mathematics, in which 2+2 is equal to something other than 4, or 'another approach' to the science of logic, where the law of identity is false. You can begin to understand how some of us can see such claims to be absurd.
Very well said.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
wilderness: Stephen Yearwood:... If this is your idea Stephen, then I truly admire your effort to enact creativity and problem solving skills. In truth that in and of itself is diminished ever the more in society in general. I completely respect that aspect of your effort. You see a problem and you didn't give in. You actually tried to figure out a solution and the effort is noble. I think what could be taken away from the responses that you have recieved is that others are asking you to check out the depth that Austrian Economics has already achieved in realizing how the free market works. The slippery slope, thus the caution I give, is to not stick with a solution without testing it against all the prevailing knowledge. This might take years to accomplish because there is alot of insightful literature that has been complied over the centuries, in regards to Austrian Economic inclinations. I would do some comparing and contrasting. Help bridge the gap between what you think your attempt is in such a theorizing that you've proposed with all the other existing theories that may or may not be either similar to yours or maybe not similar at all. For the case of the latter then maybe you truly have something. But do not disregard what other posters have said. This is by no means knee-jerk reactions from some of the posters. Some of them really do know their shit and are honestly providing what they know of what you propose compared to what they have already learned. And the posters are in a fantastic position to provide some help because they've been given the opportunity to read an array of works that took centuries to build upon. If there is a direct objection that you have to a specific thought or theory in which the Austrian school provides then that might be the best way to point out the superiority that your theory has in comparison. That's what I'm saying in comparison to what does your theory hold a more powerful explanation? The posters have recognized that what you have proposed is covered in the prevailing literature as it has been pointed out. The logic is not to be taken for granted as this science offers insight into what is possible or impossible. So when such words appear "logic" or what have you, this isn't to be taken lightly as a personal opinion but as evident in a scientific exercise. good luck and don't be detered. but don't also ignore what has already been accomplished either because that will undoubtedly do more harm than good in the long run, not just for you, but for anybody trying to understand the facts of what insights have already been given in economics. Be careful and don't ignore scientific methodology by shutting out reviews of theories that already exist. That can only stump the pursuit of truth for somebody may have provided the answers you are looking for or maybe you have something to add to what already exists, but you will never know if you don't take the opportunity to look over all the extant knowledge.
Stephen Yearwood:...
If this is your idea Stephen, then I truly admire your effort to enact creativity and problem solving skills. In truth that in and of itself is diminished ever the more in society in general. I completely respect that aspect of your effort. You see a problem and you didn't give in. You actually tried to figure out a solution and the effort is noble. I think what could be taken away from the responses that you have recieved is that others are asking you to check out the depth that Austrian Economics has already achieved in realizing how the free market works. The slippery slope, thus the caution I give, is to not stick with a solution without testing it against all the prevailing knowledge. This might take years to accomplish because there is alot of insightful literature that has been complied over the centuries, in regards to Austrian Economic inclinations. I would do some comparing and contrasting. Help bridge the gap between what you think your attempt is in such a theorizing that you've proposed with all the other existing theories that may or may not be either similar to yours or maybe not similar at all. For the case of the latter then maybe you truly have something. But do not disregard what other posters have said. This is by no means knee-jerk reactions from some of the posters. Some of them really do know their shit and are honestly providing what they know of what you propose compared to what they have already learned. And the posters are in a fantastic position to provide some help because they've been given the opportunity to read an array of works that took centuries to build upon. If there is a direct objection that you have to a specific thought or theory in which the Austrian school provides then that might be the best way to point out the superiority that your theory has in comparison. That's what I'm saying in comparison to what does your theory hold a more powerful explanation? The posters have recognized that what you have proposed is covered in the prevailing literature as it has been pointed out. The logic is not to be taken for granted as this science offers insight into what is possible or impossible. So when such words appear "logic" or what have you, this isn't to be taken lightly as a personal opinion but as evident in a scientific exercise.
good luck and don't be detered. but don't also ignore what has already been accomplished either because that will undoubtedly do more harm than good in the long run, not just for you, but for anybody trying to understand the facts of what insights have already been given in economics. Be careful and don't ignore scientific methodology by shutting out reviews of theories that already exist. That can only stump the pursuit of truth for somebody may have provided the answers you are looking for or maybe you have something to add to what already exists, but you will never know if you don't take the opportunity to look over all the extant knowledge.
Superb post, wilderness; in my experience, your best yet.
Re: JosephBright
Thank you for your civil tone. Clearly, no one in this community would argue that the economic system we have in place is an example of Austrian economic theory in action. Some posters have gone so far as to suggest it isn't even capitalism. To put into effect Austrian theory, changes would have to be made to the system, especially involving the whole approach to money. The only way that can be done is through the political process (even if it is a matter of addition through subtraction, as the saying goes). The result would be some different set of insitutional arrangements. When I say I have an alternative to Austrian economics, what I mean is I have in mind an alternative set of institutional arrangements that would, I'm saying, accomplish the fundamental goals of most libertarians: eliminating any need/excuse (depending on one's point of view) for government or a central bank to attempt to manage the economy, etc. In that sense, it is possible that there can be more than one correct answer; more than one set of institutional arrangements could be used to accomplish those same goals. Since the political process must be used to accomplish any change in institutional arrangements, and the set of arrangements I propose would actually make allies of political liberals (because of no involuntary unemployment or poverty and the stuff about environmental sustainability), that would seem to make the accomplishment of those fundmental libertarian goals more possible. Presumably, everyone would be happy to do away with taxation of any kind. I came to this forum--again, following Jeffrey Tucker's advice--in seeking to put this idea before libertarians. Perhaps I came to the wrong place.
Stephen Yearwood:Perhaps I came to the wrong place.
Come back when you make sense.
"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."
Esuric:Come back when you make sense.
Well its not that he doesn't make sense. Obviously he does or people wouldn't be trying to persuade him to see where he made mistakes. He just has misconceptions that lead to faulty applications.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Stephen I'd like for you to contemplate a simple concept.
The concept is as follows, you cannot fix economics. No more than you can fix gravity, or fix the weather. Such phenomena are natural to the world we live in. Historically it was the efforts of some in their attempt to fix economics which has errored not in the interest of man. Fixing economics is akin to attempting to fix gravity by defying it.
Now you said you wanted to 'fix our economy'. However the reason why I pointed out the statement above is that our economy is in the state that it is in now because people before you also wanted to fix the economy, and people before them and so on. Done without an understanding of economics they ended up attempting to defy various economic laws. Again akin to the man who wants to fix gravity by defying it, without any concept of physics.
Stephen Yearwood: Re: JosephBright Thank you for your civil tone. Clearly, no one in this community would argue that the economic system we have in place is an example of Austrian economic theory in action.
Thank you for your civil tone. Clearly, no one in this community would argue that the economic system we have in place is an example of Austrian economic theory in action.
This is quite evident.
Some posters have gone so far as to suggest it isn't even capitalism.
It is not capitalism. This is where I believe a lot of your misunderstanding concerning this subject emanates. I have seen no evidence thus far that you have even contemplated what capitalism, by definition, actually is. So in this sense, a lot of our disagreement is over semantics. You are using the term capitalism to refer to the current economic system in the United States, whereas the rest of us use the term in a much more precise manner that is informed by economic science. I greatly recommend that you set aside some time in the near future and study some of what we have to offer without bias, just for the honest pursuit of knowledge. I suggest starting with this book. I promise you that if you read it with an honest desire to gain understanding about the world, you will emerge from it a much more informed person.
To put into effect Austrian theory, changes would have to be made to the system, especially involving the whole approach to money. The only way that can be done is through the political process (even if it is a matter of addition through subtraction, as the saying goes).
(Emphasis mine) This is a very strong claim, and I am positive that almost everyone here disagrees with it. If you truly believe that the only way to change the economic organization of the world is through political action, then we have little ground on which to base a common debate and we will in the end just be yelling over each other. I suggest you take a look at some of the articles on the main site. I'm sure people here would be happy to recommend some as well.
The result would be some different set of insitutional arrangements. When I say I have an alternative to Austrian economics, what I mean is I have in mind an alternative set of institutional arrangements
Austrian economics does not promote any set of institutional arrangements. Economics is not a normative science, in other words, it doesn't tell you what you should do, but how the way things are. What it can do, however, is inform us of the things we can do if we seek, lets say, more wealth as opposed to less wealth in society, etc.
that would, I'm saying, accomplish the fundamental goals of most libertarians: eliminating any need/excuse (depending on one's point of view) for government or a central bank to attempt to manage the economy, etc.
It is dangerous to assume to know the goals of a group of people and set about to "fix" a system in a way that you think suit their preferences. Value is subjective, and the only means by which the goals of individuals can be served is by the market. No one man can claim to know what every other man desires.
In that sense, it is possible that there can be more than one correct answer; more than one set of institutional arrangements could be used to accomplish those same goals.
Can there be more than one answer to the question of what does 2+2 add up to? I challenge your claim that there can be more than one correct answer to a question. But that is beyond the scope of the current argument.
Since the political process must be used to accomplish any change in institutional arrangements
Again, you seem to be caught in this dangerous line of thinking. Should the heroin addict be given a different sort of drug to cure his addiction, or should the drugs be removed altogether? Have you considered that perhaps the political process is inherently flawed, and no amount of tinkering will repair it?
Presumably, everyone would be happy to do away with taxation of any kind.
Sure.
I came to this forum--again, following Jeffrey Tucker's advice--in seeking to put this idea before libertarians. Perhaps I came to the wrong place.
No, just the opposite. You came to the best place you can find on the internet. A real treasure. Please take advantage of it, learn from it, and grow in wisdom from it. I do hope you stay and continue to seek knowledge.
Best regards,
Bright
Re Wilderness's encouragement:
I can't let such a thoughtful response go unacknowledged. I appreciate the obvious sincerity (and have would appreciated it even without the first four or five sentences). I think that the basic problem is that I was seeking out libertarians, whereas the members of this community aren't that politically oriented. Fair enough.
Stephen Yearwood: Re: JosephBright Thank you for your civil tone. Clearly, no one in this community would argue that the economic system we have in place is an example of Austrian economic theory in action. Some posters have gone so far as to suggest it isn't even capitalism. To put into effect Austrian theory, changes would have to be made to the system, especially involving the whole approach to money. The only way that can be done is through the political process (even if it is a matter of addition through subtraction, as the saying goes). The result would be some different set of insitutional arrangements. When I say I have an alternative to Austrian economics, what I mean is I have in mind an alternative set of institutional arrangements that would, I'm saying, accomplish the fundamental goals of most libertarians
Thank you for your civil tone. Clearly, no one in this community would argue that the economic system we have in place is an example of Austrian economic theory in action. Some posters have gone so far as to suggest it isn't even capitalism. To put into effect Austrian theory, changes would have to be made to the system, especially involving the whole approach to money. The only way that can be done is through the political process (even if it is a matter of addition through subtraction, as the saying goes). The result would be some different set of insitutional arrangements. When I say I have an alternative to Austrian economics, what I mean is I have in mind an alternative set of institutional arrangements that would, I'm saying, accomplish the fundamental goals of most libertarians
I think you're missing the point of Joseph's post. Austrian economics is a value-free method of study, not a method to accomplish. As an example, Austrian economics tells us that an increase in minimum wage law will result in an increase in unemployment. It does not, however, tell us that we ought not increase the minimum wage. Austrian economics can be used to analyze any economy, not just a completely free market. It explains the Great Depression, the recent housing market, stagflation, the socialists' calculation problem, the collapse of the USSR, etc. It makes no claim as to whether these are good or bad, only explains their causes.
Your proposal is an alternative to both the current system and to a completely free market (capitalism). Austrian economics could certainly be used to study your system, however.
faber est suae quisque fortunae
Stephen Yearwood:The only way that can be done is through the political process
So, Gandhi and the civil rights movement were not successful by not using the political process?
Stephen Yearwood:Since the political process must be used to accomplish any change in institutional arrangements,
Why is that? What do you think would happen if 5% of the population stopped cooperating with the government? Stopped paying taxes, stopped using its currency, stopped paying their fines, and stopped applying for licenses to do business?
Stephen Yearwood:I came to this forum--again, following Jeffrey Tucker's advice--in seeking to put this idea before libertarians. Perhaps I came to the wrong place.
Why is that? Because we do not agree with you?
Stephen Yearwood:I think that the basic problem is that I was seeking out libertarians, whereas the members of this community aren't that politically oriented.
Libertarianism is the absence of politics.
Laughing Man:Well its not that he doesn't make sense. Obviously he does or people wouldn't be trying to persuade him to see where he made mistakes. He just has misconceptions that lead to faulty applications.
Okay, it makes sense insofar as it's written in English, but that's where it ends.
JackCuyler:As an example, Austrian economics tells us that an increase in minimum wage law will result in an increase in unemployment. It does not, however, tell us that we ought not increase the minimum wage.
Sure it does.
Stephen Yearwood:Of course, the question does arise, why would any business have an employee who was performing "less than common labor,"
As LS and I stressed, things change. Therefore businesses need to continually adapt. It makes perfect sense that a private business might find itself with an employee who was performing "less than common labor". When that employee was hired retaining his services was deemed advantageous, but things changed, causing his services to no longer be deemed so.
And could you please answer this question...?
J. Grayson Lilburne:If so, then how is [the allotted income] different from a combination of a soaring minimum wage and a gigantic government unemployment "insurance" scheme? How do you avoid all the problems widely known to be associated with both?
Re JackCuyler, "Libertqarianism is the absence of politics:
As long as people are living together in communities there has to be a political process. Warren J. Samuels defined "social power" as "the ability to effect chocies." Extending that, the political process can be defined as the process of effecting choices for the community as a whole. It's inherent in the existence of any community. How do Austrians propose to implement their economic theory without using the political process to change the existing set of economic institutions?
Stephen Yearwood: Re JackCuyler, "Libertqarianism is the absence of politics: As long as people are living together in communities there has to be a political process. Warren J. Samuels defined "social power" as "the ability to effect chocies." Extending that, the political process can be defined as the process of effecting choices for the community as a whole. It's inherent in the existence of any community. How do Austrians propose to implement their economic theory without using the political process to change the existing set of economic institutions?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe5.html