-
Certainly. It's not a matter of correctness, but of commonality.
-
[quote user=Valject]The Austrian school per se doesn't have anything against such a decision. The reasoning, of course, is that those who use models unwisely will ultimately become insolvent. It is merely the subjective decision of a given Austrian to refuse to use such models.[/quote user=Valject] Okay, I see where you're going with this, but
-
Okay, let me see if I'm reading your attempted analogy right... Assume there is some ideal economic system, and we aren't there. Assume that the changes to reach the ideal are known, and the costs of those changes are calculable. Is it possible that the costs of reaching the ideal system outweigh the gains of the transition? Is that what you're
-
Aside from the Marxist objection to profit described already, there is another possible rationale that I know of: 1) All economic activity pushes the state of things toward the Evenly Rotating Economy. 2) In the Evenly Rotating Economy, there is no profit, and all wants are maximally satisfied. Conclusion) By eliminating profits, we can achieve the
-
Not only did you get it, but you also came up with a pretty good example of that mechanism working. I just read this part of Man, Economy, and State a couple weeks ago and had a very similar difficulty at this part. Good book.
-
There is no intellectual concept so simple that it cannot be destroyed by the perversion of language. Even verbalized mathematics relies on a set of concrete definitions that the communicating individuals must share. I don't think the problem stems from libertarians talking about rights--it stems from masses of people having an opposing definition
-
Drew Brando, my basic thought on Direct Democracy, if I understand the term correctly, is that it is fundamentally unworkable due to the incentives it creates. First, in a world with billions of people, direct democracy can't possibly work without significant division by geographic area. Obviously, beneficial laws in New York City may be disastrous
-
Gah. What a horror. And the shape of that fellow's head... my God. To any "equal money" nutjobs: Money is not the salt. The necessary goods are the salt. Only SOME of the necessary goods aren't abundant like the salt. They need to be produced. If we simply GIVE all of the non-abundant goods to those who need them, there is no reason
-
It's funny because it presumes calculability from determinism and it sounds like "destiny." Yeah. [/sarcasm]
-
So, they're basically asking for total wage equality, that every worker be paid an identical amount of money per hour of labor. What are the most effective ways to attack such a view of how the world "should" be? First, this is nothing but a restatement of the labor theory of value. The simplest way to debunk any hard reading of the labor