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:Every science serves a function. The study of physics can help propel a man to space, but it doesn't tell us that we should.
If we're trying to propel a man into space then we should apply what we know from physics.
"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: JosephBright:Every science serves a function. The study of physics can help propel a man to space, but it doesn't tell us that we should. If we're trying to propel a man into space then we should apply what we know from physics.
No question about that. What we are arguing is that nowhere in physics does it say that you should build a rocket ship to the moon.
I like how one supposed benefit of this is that it abolishes government and central bank control of the economy whilst establishing a monetary authority with powers that make current central banks look like some sort of libertarian wet dream.
JosephBright:No question about that. What we are arguing is that nowhere in physics does it say that you should build a rocket ship to the moon.
My point is that this distinction is barren. If you understand economics, and if you want prosperity and economic growth, then you should oppose minimum wage laws. If you don't want prosperity and economic growth, then you are evil. Austrian economics reveals the negative effects of minimum wage laws and we should act upon this knowledge. Austrian economics, then, tells us what we should do.
Esuric: JosephBright:No question about that. What we are arguing is that nowhere in physics does it say that you should build a rocket ship to the moon. My point is that this distinction is barren. If you understand economics, and if you want prosperity and economic growth, then you should oppose minimum wage laws. If you don't want prosperity and economic growth, then you are evil. Austrian economics reveals the negative effects of minimum wage laws and we should act upon this knowledge. Austrian economics, then, tells us what we should do.
The distinction is very momentous, not only for the sake of truth and clarity of thought, but for rhetorical purposes. To convince people, we need to show that Austrian Economics is not just libertarian apologia. To do that, we need to make perfectly clear that we recognize the distinction between economics and ethics.
J. Grayson Lilburne:The distinction is very momentous, not only for the sake of truth and clarity of thought, but for rhetorical purposes. To convince people, we need to show that Austrian Economics is not just libertarian apologia. To do that, we need to make perfectly clear that we recognize the distinction between economics and ethics.
That makes sense.
Those wants have nothing to do with economic science. Economics just informs you about the logical consequences of human action. An understanding of economics is just as useful to a libertarian who wants to create prosperity in society as it is to a dictator who wants to wreck the economy for his own benefit. It doesn't tell you which course of action you ought to take. That is a decision left up to ethics.
Think about it this way. Using physics, I can create a rocket that will shuttle me to the moon. Using the same physics, I could purposefully create a rocket that will crash and kill its occupants. Which action I choose is beyond the scope of physics.
Exactly, without value statements economics just tells you what is irrespective of what ought to be. Much like history without theory is just listing of events without explanation or fluidity.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Esuric: J. Grayson Lilburne:Economics tells us the effect of increasing the minimum wage: increasing institutional unemployment. It does not say, "one ought not to seek to increase institutional unemployment". Such a statement is an ethical one, and has nothing to do with economic theory. You're denying human action and logic. If we know that increasing minimum wage will lead to unemployment, and we don't desire unemployment in anyway whatever, then economics will tell us not to increase the minimum wage rate.
J. Grayson Lilburne:Economics tells us the effect of increasing the minimum wage: increasing institutional unemployment. It does not say, "one ought not to seek to increase institutional unemployment". Such a statement is an ethical one, and has nothing to do with economic theory.
You're denying human action and logic. If we know that increasing minimum wage will lead to unemployment, and we don't desire unemployment in anyway whatever, then economics will tell us not to increase the minimum wage rate.
That is only true if "we don't desire unemployment in anyway whatever". If we do, in fact, desire unemployment (I have no idea why we would, but that's no the issue) then Austrian economics tells us that we should increase minimum wages. Economics only tell us if our actions will lead to the intended results. It does not judge those results any more than a hammer judges into what it is pounding a nail.
faber est suae quisque fortunae
JosephBright: Those wants have nothing to do with economic science. Economics just informs you about the logical consequences of human action. An understanding of economics is just as useful to a libertarian who wants to create prosperity in society as it is to a dictator who wants to wreck the economy for his own benefit. It doesn't tell you which course of action you ought to take. That is a decision left up to ethics. Think about it this way. Using physics, I can create a rocket that will shuttle me to the moon. Using the same physics, I could purposefully create a rocket that will crash and kill its occupants. Which action I choose is beyond the scope of physics.
Okay, the immaterial metaphysical concept known as economics doesn't say what we should do. Great, I concede the point.
Esuric: JosephBright: Those wants have nothing to do with economic science. Economics just informs you about the logical consequences of human action. An understanding of economics is just as useful to a libertarian who wants to create prosperity in society as it is to a dictator who wants to wreck the economy for his own benefit. It doesn't tell you which course of action you ought to take. That is a decision left up to ethics. Think about it this way. Using physics, I can create a rocket that will shuttle me to the moon. Using the same physics, I could purposefully create a rocket that will crash and kill its occupants. Which action I choose is beyond the scope of physics. Okay, the immaterial metaphysical concept known as economics doesn't say what we should do. Great, I concede the point.
Wonderful. Now we can proceed to use our understanding of economics to make the world a nicer place
JosephBright:Wonderful. Now we can proceed to use our understanding of economics to make the world a nicer place
Indeed!
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?
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?
"Effecting choices for the community as a whole" is the antithesis of libertarianism. And for the last time, Austrian Economics is a method of study; there is no way to "implement" it.
Laughing Man: Exactly, without value statements economics just tells you what is irrespective of what ought to be. Much like history without theory is just listing of events without explanation or fluidity.
Right, but it is no crisis.
Economics has the explanatory power to be descriptive of a bad economy as well as a good economy, meaning, an economic science can explain all economies. The ethical statements can be secondly by introducing and applying the whole other science called ethics. If economics became limited by explaining a good economy only, then it wouldn't be able to show and point out directly via theories, what is going on in a bad economy. Therefore by studying an economy the economy is known. And then if that is a bad or good economy, then the evalution of such an economy being either good or bad would necessarily come second. Let me explain further.
In ethics the explanation of what is good and bad comes about, but ethics is not applied to economics only. That shows how ethics is a distinct field that can be applied in other fields, ie medicine, etc.... In economics ethics can be applied but that application would have to be from aprior knowledge on what the economy is, in which the ethical judgment is to deliberate upon.
Thus the order in passing an ethical judgment upon an economy would need to follow this reasonable set of events. First, the economy needs to be understood first and that's what economics does. Secondly, an ethical application based on the insight of what that economy is can be deliberated upon. The individual applying an ethical judgment upon the economy needed to have the knowledge of the economy first before a deliberate ethical judgement could even act. There is no ethical insight upon an economy unless there is knowledge of an economy first, in which to secondly pass an ethical judgment upon. It can not be known if an economy is good or bad, if a person doesn't know what that economy is.