Economics Questions

Re: IMO the two biggest problems with economists and the study of economics.

hyp3rvigi1ant — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 18:30:10 GMT

SilentXtarian:

So in other words- you're not really for freedom. You only believe in the first amendment when it comes to public spaces, and, you would be fine if the government barred the first amendment from private property? So then- in a libertarian or an anarchist society- you would find it a violation of property rights if the government enacted free speech laws? If I'm getting this right- if we had a libertarian society- would you rather free speech not to exist?

Does an owner of a piece of land not have the right to regulate who else can come onto that land? Of course any reason for a regulation would be purely arbitrary, but that is true for any kind of regulation of anything, whether your own property or that owned by someone else. This is what property is...something a person has claim to control or regulate. You control who drives your car. You control who lives in your house. You control who gets what food from your fridge or pantry. You control what you trade for other things. You control your own body.

So if an owner of a section of land finds someone on his land (whether invited or not) speaking things he does not want spoken, does the owner not have the right to regulate his property and impose conditions that person must agree to in order to remain on this property, such as not speaking of things the owner finds objectionable? Of course the owner of a piece of land can say whatever they wish on their own land, but is also regulated when on someone else's land. Currently, the first amendment seems to be intended to at least allow "free speech" on government property (although we know the government does in fact restrict such speech on it's property).

So of course free speech would exist in a libertarian/anarcho-capitalist society. You can speak freely on your own property, and on the property of others as long as they allow others the right to free speech. For a government to allow anyone to say anything on anyone's property is to restrict the property owner's ability to regulate their own property, hence a violation of their "rights".

EDIT (in continuation of the above):

The enactment of a "free speech" law is in effect the partial socialization of land. Partial control/regulation is removed from private owners of land and transfered to the government. Any land owner attempting to reassert their full ownership of their land and regulating speech on it does so at the risk of the government initiating violence against them.

People that believe everyone should be able to speak what they wish on anyone's property always (assuming a free market) have the option to attempt to purchase the right to speech regulation from land owners and then allow anyone to come onto that land to speak what they wish. I would speculate that most land owners that sell you this right will not sell you absolute speech control over their land, but only speech control of some part of the population that does not include themselves (or their family and friends).

Re: IMO the two biggest problems with economists and the study of economics.

hyp3rvigi1ant — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 18:09:14 GMT

SilentXtarian:

I read a bit of Human Action (the Mises book) so I know a bit about it. I agree with it on principle- but I think that there has to be some balance. I don't think that we can just reject statistics altogether, but, we should have a balance. I don't quite know what that is but I think the correct economics is somewhere between austrian economics and mainstream economics.

Michael J Green:

And be wary of insisting on moderation and striking "a balance." Moderation/balance is a good policy for much of life, but it's all too easy to treat it as its own dogma. Maintaining a balance is often wise, but it is not the definition of wisdom.

Marked:

By your own admission, you have a rather foggy understanding of AE. Why do you insist the "need" for "balance" when you don't even understand what you intend to balance?!

SilentXtarian:

I say the right kind of economics is a balance between mainstream economics and austrian economics. Mainstream economists use too much statistics and they don't know much how to explain things- while austrians use too few statistics, and, it becomes a problem when proving things.

Argument to Moderation

Re: IMO the two biggest problems with economists and the study of economics.

Caley McKibbin — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 06:52:25 GMT

By the classical terms the US Federal Government is a 'corporation', that is a body that is corporate or incorporated.

What is that supposed to mean? The USFG is a corporation by any terms.

Re: IMO the two biggest problems with economists and the study of economics.

Vichy Army — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 19:40:58 GMT

You pay too much attention to labels and not enough to substance. For example, Hitler was socialist because the State directly regulated industry to the point where it was the de facto owners. Any other definition of 'socialism' is rather irrelevant for political economy.

http://mises.org/humanaction/chap33sec4.asp

Re: IMO the two biggest problems with economists and the study of economics.

the_last_name_left — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 18:48:21 GMT

fascism from english guild socialism? How so? In the same way trades unions are, say?

Apparently the best academic definition of (the core) of fascism is "pallingentic populist ultranationalism" -- a phoenix-like rebirth of the nation. (Prof Roger Griffin) In such a sense, the close relationship between state and private sector has absolutely nothing to do with it, though such notions seem common on the internet, especially amongst americans (and conspiracists.)

[BTW Why do you have a crude anti-socialist Mussolini quote as a tagline?]

Re: IMO the two biggest problems with economists and the study of economics.

Vichy Army — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 08:59:27 GMT

Jon Irenicus- if it's not the fault of the market than those fault is it?

The two legged herd animals who tolerate it.

fascism is *not* corporate government. this comes from Mussolini's (ghost written) quote. He spoke of corporations as understood by Italians in the 1920s, meaning, more like stakeholders - not corporations as we might understand them today.

Yeah, Italian fascism derives from English guild socialism. A corporation is simply a group of owning/concerned parties, the modern usage is quite different. By the classical terms the US Federal Government is a 'corporation', that is a body that is corporate or incorporated.

Re: IMO the two biggest problems with economists and the study of economics.

Caley McKibbin — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 08:38:26 GMT

He spoke of corporations as understood by Italians in the 1920s, meaning, more like stakeholders - not corporations as we might understand them today.

The difference is...

Re: IMO the two biggest problems with economists and the study of economics.

the_last_name_left — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 08:30:15 GMT

fascism is *not* corporate government. this comes from Mussolini's (ghost written) quote. He spoke of corporations as understood by Italians in the 1920s, meaning, more like stakeholders - not corporations as we might understand them today.

Re: IMO the two biggest problems with economists and the study of economics.

ViennaSausage — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 01:42:58 GMT

SilentXtarian

The reason why I ask about this is that there is a dangerous attitude in our legal system and many people around the country also believe this- that your personal liberties are trumped by property rights. Therefore it does not matter that you are living in someone else's home, the constitution does not apply there, and they can make the rules as strict as the Soviet Union. What do libertarians say about this?

Apologies for the tardy reply.

We have to remember that we ourselves are property, and that we own ourselves. Or to speak more precise, an individual owns his or herself. Likewise, if another individual initiates infringement on ones personal liberties, that would be "illegal".

Our legal system is not necessarily a libertarian legal system, those it shares many aspects of what a libertarian minarchist legal system would be.

Re: IMO the two biggest problems with economists and the study of economics.

EconomistInTraining — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 21:20:31 GMT

1. That's why I say the right kind of economics is a balance between mainstream economics and austrian economics. Mainstream economists use too much statistics and they don't know much how to explain things- while austrians use too few statistics, and, it becomes a problem when proving things.

It uses statistical techniques for empirics, perhaps you could make a case for other approaches to empirical work, and if so I'd like to see such a case. But in terms of theory, economists are perfectly capable of "explaining things", using graphical techniques for exposition, language to flesh out the intuition and math to rigorously prove the results.

2. It does seem a little silly... but I guess it could be useful somewhere.

In terms of history of thought as a subfield in and of itself, it's absolutely useful. However, too much Austrian economics (and PK economics) gets bogged down fighting over what was said 50 years ago.

Re: IMO the two biggest problems with economists and the study of economics.

SilentXtarian — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 21:03:00 GMT

Marked
I know what the NAE principle is. I was just wondering about the legal theme that seems to be common today- that legal property rights trump your constitutional liberties. I've found out about this view by reading free speech cases and finding out that people would more want to protect the property of an individual from someone else's speech- despite the fact that free speech is viewed with high regard in our society. If property owners can deprive people of their right to free speech what other rights can they deprive them of?

That's how it's always worked in America. You have the right to say whatever you want on "Public" property(Supposedly), but elsewhere? You'd best watch your tongue. It's like how I can't just come over to your house right now and deliver a sermon on private property rights.

So in other words- you're not really for freedom. You only believe in the first amendment when it comes to public spaces, and, you would be fine if the government barred the first amendment from private property? So then- in a libertarian or an anarchist society- you would find it a violation of property rights if the government enacted free speech laws? If I'm getting this right- if we had a libertarian society- would you rather free speech not to exist?

EconomistinTraining

1/ It's funny, you mention four economists at least two of whom have been motivated entirely by ideological concerns and are well outside of the mainstream and conclude that all economists are dogmatic? Look, for all the talk of physics envy and a priorism, at least mainstream economists can say their models have been subjected to rigorous empirical testing and serious theoretical scrutiny. Austrians will go on and on about the costs of regulation and taxation but when the time comes to provide the empirics, there isn't much forthcoming.

2. Thing is, you get Austrians and PKs who spent their careers on history of economic thought; meaning "what did Mises or Keynes, Hayek or Robinson, Rothbard or Kalecki really say?"

1. That's why I say the right kind of economics is a balance between mainstream economics and austrian economics. Mainstream economists use too much statistics and they don't know much how to explain things- while austrians use too few statistics, and, it becomes a problem when proving things.

2. It does seem a little silly... but I guess it could be useful somewhere.

Re: IMO the two biggest problems with economists and the study of economics.

EconomistInTraining — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 21:35:43 GMT

The first big problem with economists is that everyone is so dogmatic. Rothbard, Hayek, Krugman, Keynes, and all of these other economists nowadays seem to suffer from the study of economics as a religion

It's funny, you mention four economists at least two of whom have been motivated entirely by ideological concerns and are well outside of the mainstream and conclude that all economists are dogmatic? Look, for all the talk of physics envy and a priorism, at least mainstream economists can say their models have been subjected to rigorous empirical testing and serious theoretical scrutiny. Austrians will go on and on about the costs of regulation and taxation but when the time comes to provide the empirics, there isn't much forthcoming. Thing is, you get Austrians and PKs who spent their careers on history of economic thought; meaning "what did Mises or Keynes, Hayek or Robinson, Rothbard or Kalecki really say?"

If anybody knows of any similar literature on what Debreu or Arrow really meant, please link me...

Re: IMO the two biggest problems with economists and the study of economics.

Marked — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 12:00:40 GMT

I know what the NAE principle is. I was just wondering about the legal theme that seems to be common today- that legal property rights trump your constitutional liberties. I've found out about this view by reading free speech cases and finding out that people would more want to protect the property of an individual from someone else's speech- despite the fact that free speech is viewed with high regard in our society. If property owners can deprive people of their right to free speech what other rights can they deprive them of?

That's how it's always worked in America. You have the right to say whatever you want on "Public" property(Supposedly), but elsewhere? You'd best watch your tongue. It's like how I can't just come over to your house right now and deliver a sermon on private property rights.

That the economic "rescue plans" aren't intended to rescue the whole economy. . It's like the one in 2008. It was only supposed to rescue the big banks. But it was given the window dressing and support from the media to make it seem like it was for the whole economy. Remember how they shifted the talk from rescuing the too big to fail companies to the economic stimulus? The stimulus was only supposed to give pepole tax breaks... the hope is once the businesses and the corporations recovered, then, people would start working again. That's why I say what I say.

Okay.

Re: IMO the two biggest problems with economists and the study of economics.

SilentXtarian — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 22:12:50 GMT

Marked

I really hate to bring out the "Post Count" forum cliche, but you've racked up over 400 posts in your stay here, and you're unaware of the Non-Aggression Principle?

I know what the NAE principle is. I was just wondering about the legal theme that seems to be common today- that legal property rights trump your constitutional liberties. I've found out about this view by reading free speech cases and finding out that people would more want to protect the property of an individual from someone else's speech- despite the fact that free speech is viewed with high regard in our society. If property owners can deprive people of their right to free speech what other rights can they deprive them of?

The solution is for the people to hold the corporations accountable.

And what sort of accountability do you have in mind? I can think of several that people can do without any coercion whatsoever: Boycotts, informing others, being a downright jerk and utilizing Libel/slander, etc.

However, by the rest of your statement, I honestly doubt that's what you were thinking about.

That's kind of what I had in mind. But also just there needs to be more of a general education about what these corporations do in general. So, it
's not that different really.

I read a bit of Human Action (the Mises book) so I know a bit about it. I agree with it on principle- but I think that there has to be some balance. I don't think that we can just reject statistics altogether, but, we should have a balance. I don't quite know what that is but I think the correct economics is somewhere between austrian economics and mainstream economics.

te]

By your own admission, you have a rather foggy understanding of AE. Why do you insist the "need" for "balance" when you don't even understand what you intend to balance?!

I've read literature from AE before. Isn't AE mostly rational logic axioms? It uses the boom and bust cycle theory to tell when the fed created a business cycle, and, when it was artificially expanded, and what not. The government economic intervention messes up the normal and rational processes of the market. People are rational beings for the most part and they do things because of specific purposes? Isn't that what AE is?

I see what you're saying. I think that everyone does this. But I think simple statements like "government intervention works" or "government intervention never works" miss the point because usually I don't think they're intended to rescue the whole economy. That's only after the initial government intervention. The initial intervention is usually intended to rescue the corporate oligarchs... saying whether it works or it doesn't work misses the point IMO.

And what "point" is this?

That the economic "rescue plans" aren't intended to rescue the whole economy. . It's like the one in 2008. It was only supposed to rescue the big banks. But it was given the window dressing and support from the media to make it seem like it was for the whole economy. Remember how they shifted the talk from rescuing the too big to fail companies to the economic stimulus? The stimulus was only supposed to give pepole tax breaks... the hope is once the businesses and the corporations recovered, then, people would start working again. That's why I say what I say.

Re: IMO the two biggest problems with economists and the study of economics.

SilentXtarian — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 22:03:47 GMT

ViennaSausage

I don't know what sort of libertarians you are hanging around with, or getting your information from. I think I can speak for the majority, if not all libertarians on this board (correct me if I am wrong), that libertarians hold the NAP, non-aggression principle, near and dear to libertarianism. The NAP is to libertarianism what the Action Axiom is to Austrian Economics. The NAP is what libertarianism is built off of. Hence one cannot initiate force or physical abuse towards others, and implied in this, wives.

The reason why I ask about this is that there is a dangerous attitude in our legal system and many people around the country also believe this- that your personal liberties are trumped by property rights. Therefore it does not matter that you are living in someone else's home, the constitution does not apply there, and they can make the rules as strict as the Soviet Union. What do libertarians say about this?