-
Let me get this straight: 1. Labor productivity rose. 2. Capitalists reaped most of the rewards from rising productivity. 3. The capitalists therefore had a greater share of demand, which they did not expect. 4. An internal calculation error destroyed the economy. This is problematic. Labor productivity mainly rises from an increase in capital, meaning
-
The question is not whether it would be wrong. The question is what incentive a justice company would have in prosecuting the man if it's for-profit.
-
I agree with your idea of stability - the stable theft of American savings. Also, your faith in the CPI is absurd. For example, the CPI includes rent but not housing costs. The inflation in housing over the last few years did not touch CPI! But now during the recession rent demand will rise , it will not rise as much as the housing bubble, but the BLS
-
All of your bullet points would be fine except for two problems: 1) They suffer from a presuppositional bias: to disagree with the Austrians on their research direction away from mainstream economics as a critique by itself, for example, is meaningles because of the presuppositional gap between Austrian economics and mainstream economics! That critique
-
[quote]Do you not see that it is pure exploitation if one group of people can change the law that other people have to follow, then claim they have the right to punish them when they are "breaking the law"?[/quote] I always see Marxists talk about exploitation, but I never bothered to look it up because they are rather blatantly wrong. Ironically
-
It is impossible for the anarchists to not receive benefits from the goods provided by me. Because my government brings about the rule of law, society is incentivized away from breaking the law and toward a peaceful social order. All citizens receive these benefits, whether they agree or not. In order to ensure a segment of society is not paying for
-
If the law says to pay taxes, and somebody breaks the law, they are not innocent of breaking the law. Would I have the right? No, as president I would have the obligation to enforce law. What are the libertarian ideals, exactly, which contradict presidents performing their paid functions? As president, should I just ignore what my employers have called
-
I think that transaction demand held up by legal tender laws and trust is the only thing that maintains the value of currency. If legal tender laws were revoked and trust fell, transaction demand would undeniably move from fiat money to a new form of currency. For anything other than fiat money to maintain the volume of trade which goes on in the world
-
How does that follow? You are a troll.
-
Where did I mention anything about supporting government put in place by God? That doesn't follow. Of course sin is part of God's plan, which he works out through all creation, but that doesn't have to do with whether rulers are just or moral from our perspective. Somebody else mentioned something. I tend to agree. You really are a troll