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.
Stephen Yearwood:Re: Wilderness Interesting response, given the epigram that follows it about "Kissing ass" being, apparently, too common. Certainly, no one is under any obligation to consider what I have to say, but to claim that one isn't going to read it, much less attempt to truly understand it, because one didn't like the "sale" is to put forth a bad excuse that wasn't the least bit necessary, anyway.
In all honesty, that was well said!
Stephen Yearwood:So, to retain any particular employee who the business deemed performed something more than common labor, the business would have to negotiate a salary with that person.
What if an employee is deemed to "perform something less than common labor"? Can he be laid off? If not, then how is your "allotted income" different from a soaring minimum wage? If so, then how is it 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?
Really, I am not sure what you want here.
Here is a start:
"First of all, improving capitalism is only a good idea because capitalism has so much to commend it, despite its problems." Capitalism to me means unregulated markets and free trade. How does one improve on unregulated markets and free trade? You cannot deregulate the market if it is not regulated and you cannot decriminalize trade if it is already unhindered.
"Still, capitalism does have some fundamental problems. It is inherently unstable," That is a problem not with capitalism, but with life. Yes unfortunately we all die and no one is omniscient. We all have to sleep and eat and drink. It is unstable because of reality. So you think reality can be changed?
"and has always been dependent on governments and central banks to keep it from collapsing in on itself," This is an assertion, not an argument. Do you have any proof that this is true?
"which has in turn created a countervailing tendency towards inflation." If you are saying that inflation occurs mainly because of central banking and government involvement of currency, I would tend to agree. If not, then I need more explanation.
"In capitalism as it has ever existed," Capitalism has never truly existed.
"The uneven development of capitalism in the world has made seeking economic opportunity the prime motive for massive migrations of people" Another baseless assertion. People move for all kinds of reasons, economics being only one of them.
"Capitalism has always had involuntary unemployment and poverty associated with it." Again, capitalism has never truly existed. As such, how can you make such an assertion?
Given that there are so many fallacies in just the first few sentences, why would I want to continue reading?
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Stephen Yearwood: 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.
First of all, I would like to say that about 2/3rds of this paper consists only of unfounded and unsubstantiated assertions. The so-called “uneveneness” of capitalism and its “inherent instability” is in no way self-evident. Leaving that aside, your proposals are preposterous. Also, it was difficult to read your paper because it literally makes no sense and is horribly written. That being said, the allotted incomes, according to your plan, would be paid out to a certain subset of society by the government based on previous performances at a fixed rate. How will the remunerations to labor, that is, their wages, fluctuate in the face of productivity changes without a market? Will Central planners arbitrarily decide the “appropriate” wage level? Furthermore, if the government is paying the workers with pure inflation, does that mean that the land owner’s and entrepreneurs get to keep the lion’s share of the revenue? Usually, a large portion of income is given to labor (about 2/3rds) and the rest is divided between capital and land. This would mean huge supernormal profits in industries where this practice is most common and therefore a massive (and arbitrary) reallocation of resources. This would affect the demand for real capital and therefore the natural and market rates of interest. The whole economy would be continuously trapped in permenant disequilibria.
"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."
Re. Lilburne, asking whether employees earning the allotted income could be laid off:
Absolutely that person would be laid off. This is not about having people other than the owners and managers of businesses making business decisions for businesses. Of course, the question does arise, why would any business have an employee who was performing "less than common labor," i.e., I take that to mean, superfluous labor. Isn't that the province of government, according to most members of this community? LOL
One direction in which that response does point is the issue as to where the money comes from to pay those who are payed the allotted income. Many people, at first blush, tend to think it somehow comes from government, but it does not. That is the most original, even radical, part of this idea. The money to pay everyone being paid the allotted income comes from a separate, independent monetary agency. It prints money as needed to get everyone paid. It does not, however, have any ability to influence what the size of the money supply would be. The total of the money supply would simply be the number of people being paid the allotted income ("common labor" in businesses, everyone employed in government, retirees, and people genuinely too incapacitated to work any kind of job whatsoever) multiplied by the amount of that income (which would be the same for everyone receiving it, and would never change once set).
Stephen Yearwood:The only thing I'm out to "fix" is our economic system as it now exists.
But you cannot. That's the fundamental understanding of the Austrian school. Life is dynamic. Economies are dynamic. Preferences and conditions are dynamic. You cannot fix "the system" because you cannot perceive of all of the future flaws of your plan, or the needs of the economy in the future. If it was possible to plan a "system" then we wouldn't need markets.
Stephen Yearwood:Again, I'm offering an alternative to Austrian economics that accomplishes things that every libertairan wants
But this is not true. Austrian economics is based on economic science. We can improve the science, we can show where Austrian Economics makes mistakes but to claim that you have an alternative to a scientific approach is what?
And please stop making claims about what every libertarian wants. Many of us are ancaps and voluntarists. Panarchists. For a good number of us, we have little use for the state in any role. So you certainly cannot come up with a universal system that addresses the wants of people whom you don't even know. To claim such is the epitome of hubris.
Stephen Yearwood:Surely we aren't so poisoned by ideology that we would forego what we want just to keep liberals from getting what they want.
More poor argumentation. The issue isn't ideology, it is ideas. The fundamental idea behind liberty is markets. You are proposing doing away with markets, even more aggressively than the state is now. That is a move towards centralization and less liberty.
Your ideas, while novel, are not new, and not unique. People keep showing up with some "better system" and mostly because they don't actually understand any fundamentals of economics, austrian or otherwise. I strongly suggest you learn more about money, markets and epistemology.
Well, I wanted to get this idea before people who might be interested in an idea that would absolutely remove government and central banks from managing the economy, and doing way altogether with taxation of any kind, while retaining the fundamental elements of capitalism: in other words, I was thinking, libertarians. At the same time, as I have pointed out, instituting this change would not require defeating political liberals because it also happens to solve the problems that are closest to their hearts. Obviously, anyone who thinks all of those points are "fallacies" will not be interested in this idea.
People on ths forum are asking questions and making claims that it would take pages of text to answer/refute. If nobody other than Lilburne wants to ask a specific question, so be it. But putting me in my place, or whatever it is you're trying to do, with these bombastic responses, knowing they can't be refuted in a brief paragraph, is just silliness, and a waste of your own time as well as mine. If you want, you can take my word for it that they are all adequately addressed in my book (which is chock full of references to other thinkers in chapters four and five).
liberty student: Your ideas, while novel, are not new, and not unique. People keep showing up with some "better system" and mostly because they don't actually understand any fundamentals of economics, austrian or otherwise. I strongly suggest you learn more about money, markets and epistemology.
This.
It's not that we don't understand what your system is about, it's that we see problems with it from the get-go which aren't acknowledged nor solved.
Stephen Yearwood: Well, I wanted to get this idea before people who might be interested in an idea that would absolutely remove government and central banks from managing the economy, and doing way altogether with taxation of any kind, while retaining the fundamental elements of capitalism: in other words, I was thinking, libertarians. At the same time, as I have pointed out, instituting this change would not require defeating political liberals because it also happens to solve the problems that are closest to their hearts. Obviously, anyone who thinks all of those points are "fallacies" will not be interested in this idea. People on ths forum are asking questions and making claims that it would take pages of text to answer/refute. If nobody other than Lilburne wants to ask a specific question, so be it. But putting me in my place, or whatever it is you're trying to do, with these bombastic responses, knowing they can't be refuted in a brief paragraph, is just silliness, and a waste of your own time as well as mine. If you want, you can take my word for it that they are all adequately addressed in my book (which is chock full of references to other thinkers in chapters four and five).
Your so-called proposals don't make any sense, and therefore are not taken seriously. What do you want from us? Elaborate on your positions and answer our questions.
Stephen Yearwood:People on ths forum are asking questions and making claims that it would take pages of text to answer/refute.
And that is what we usually do, have lengthy discussions. And the problem is?
Stephen, you have mentioned broadly what every libertarian wants, that your system addresses the fundamentals of capitalism, and is an alternative to the Austrian school.
Could you clarify the last two for me?
What are the fundamentals of capitalism, and in what way is your system an alternative to the Austrian school? What Austrian school ideas have you improved upon or moved away from?
Opinions and comments. Was this not what was asked for?
Am I correct in assuming that you wished to post your article on Mises.org, but Mr.Tucker wisely directed you to this forum?
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.
"What’s more, instituting this idea would not only preserve capitalism’s beneficence, but enhance it. In the bargain, instituting it would presumably strengthen political democracy, though that is not an issue that will be addressed in this essay."
Eek!
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.