Did you know that you're not a libertarian?
Murray Rothbard is "overrated",
And the Mises Institute is made up of police state facists!
Oh, and consumers are producers.
Going on FB with some faith in humanity...............aaaaaaaaaaaaaand it's gone.
This is Max Keiser-tier batshittery. Point out the idiot, acknowledge the idiocy, and then move on. You can do nothing else.
I would pay big money to see this alleged article on Mises.org that allegedly praises police brutality. Even in the case of Occupy Wall Street, the institute always made the gesture to point out and admonish the police brutality inflicted on the occupiers, if for no other reason than to point out the over-all irony of it all.
"If men are not angels,
then who shall run the state?"
Actually consumers do produce somewhat. Everytime a consumer buys a product, they need money. How do they get money? Producing product or service before buying it or another act of trade.
Ergo production must come before consumption.
But the act of consumption itself, does not produce a product.
“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.""The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”
Kelvin Silva:Actually consumers do produce somewhat. Everytime a consumer buys a product, they need money. How do they get money? Producing product or service before buying it or another act of trade.
This is just a really long-winded way of saying that all of us are both consumers are producers. The point of the labels is not to point out that there is some mystical difference between producers and consumers as being totally different people. It is to point out differences in time. On my lunch break I am a consumer. When i am done with lunch and go back to work, I am a producer (who may or may not be simultaneously consuming something such as the ink my pen or the vegetables in the soup that I sell).
However, it needs to be noted that when one acts as a consumer, he is not producing anything (or adding to the wealth of the market). He is consuming, and using up wealth in that market. This whole fallacy of "you need consumers/demand to get jobs" comes from the collectivist idea that we are not individuals but a single mass, and this fallacy is perhaps the basest of all problems in economic thinking.
*note: anybody who wants to make the nit-picky claim that not all consumers are producers ever, such as the pan-handler or beggar, even these people produce something. They produce feelings of pride and happiness in the minds of those who give to them voluntarily. In exchange for these, they receive money. However, this is only true in a voluntary society. Those who do not produce in the traditional sense, but get money out of state-welfare programs really do produce nothing, as evidenced by the fact that they could not "earn" the charity voluntarily.
Also saying that "producers couldn't exist without consumers" is a bit like saying "death couldn't exist without life", or "food wouldn't exist without hunger".
While this is technically true, I think it muddles the point by downplaying the far more scarce functions that only the producer implements---creativity, innovation, and independent allocation of resources.
1) All men are consumers
2) All producers are men
3) There are no consumers
4) Hence, from (1) and (2), there are no producers.
They guy has it right.
I see your syllogysm, and raise you this one:
I can prove that headscratching is vital to production, and that the govt should do all it can make sure everyone scratches their head as much as possible:
1) All men are scratch their heads
3) There are no head scratchers
Similarly, I can prove that talking, walking, singing, wearing shoes, are as vital as consumption.
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
By the gods!