we as Austrians have a problem with flooding the economy with paper money. the keynsian's argument was that we (Austrians) do not realize that money in the computer does not flood the market and that our argument is undermined by this.
keynesians believe electronic money to be sterile? are they that nuts?
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Expand your thoughts man, haha give more than a sentence
Do they believe electronic money is never spent? it has no purchasing power?
in that world you could tell it apart (functionally) from paper money, you can't spend it like money.!
I agree. Electronic money still contributes to an overall increase in dollars, right?
spot on. so what was your opponents point?
Sam29, is it possible to bring your friend here? For a dinner
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
Haha I would love to get him in a room with all of us.
But his point is that that electric money has no bearing on the value of dollars as long as we are producing at even pace with our printing (or entering).
And if I stood him on q treadmill would he say that his walking forwards had no bearing on his position if he walks at the rate of the tread?
Sam29: AdrianHealey, I am a new student of the Austrian School. I am reading a lot and learning and asking you guys on here these questions is very helpful because there are a lot of well read Austrians. I am doing this to learn. Thank you for the book references. I will say despite being only a novice in Austrian theory, I have done pretty well schooling dumb statists thus far. I just have lots of learning to do. Thanks a lot, yall I appreciate your help and insights.
AdrianHealey,
I am a new student of the Austrian School. I am reading a lot and learning and asking you guys on here these questions is very helpful because there are a lot of well read Austrians. I am doing this to learn. Thank you for the book references. I will say despite being only a novice in Austrian theory, I have done pretty well schooling dumb statists thus far. I just have lots of learning to do.
Thanks a lot, yall I appreciate your help and insights.
Thumbs up for positive attitude!
The state is not the enemy. The idea of the state is.
< < You cannot create wealth through force. > >
Sure you can. You can round up everybody in the country and make them your slaves. You can force them to work in factories, running on treadmills to generate electricity, convince them that they need government to protect them from the Boogey-man who will do even worse things to them.. etc. etc.
If you do this to a largely sedentary population, a people who are content eating fruits from the trees, root from the earth and sleeping all day long then you can arguably say that the government has created wealth.
Yes, I am playing the devil's advocate with a deliberate purpose. My purpose is to make you all think differently of government acgtion. I think we should criticize government action by saying that it is morally wrong for them to force their particular form of wealth creation instead of just saying that the government can not create wealth.
Charles Anthony: < < You cannot create wealth through force. > > Sure you can.
Sure you can.
Playing devil's advocate to your devil's advocate, what you are saying is that slavery is a viable economic option. But this has been refuted over and over.
mises.org/journals/lar/pdfs/3_2/3_2_1.pdf
mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/rae7_2_2.pdf
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
Slavery is a viable option to some people. Slave drivers do not live forever and they may in fact die before their actions affect them negatively.
The definition of VIABLE is in the eye of the slave driver.
No you can't. The government has clearly destroyed wealth in your scenario, not created it; in the process, it has also transferred wealth from everybody it enslaved to itself, making itself very rich, but the total wealth is vastly lower than it was before.
Charles Anthony:Sure you can. You can round up everybody in the country and make them your slaves. You can force them to work in factories, running on treadmills to generate electricity, convince them that they need government to protect them from the Boogey-man who will do even worse things to them.. etc. etc. If you do this to a largely sedentary population, a people who are content eating fruits from the trees, root from the earth and sleeping all day long then you can arguably say that the government has created wealth. Yes, I am playing the devil's advocate with a deliberate purpose. My purpose is to make you all think differently of government acgtion. I think we should criticize government action by saying that it is morally wrong for them to force their particular form of wealth creation instead of just saying that the government can not create wealth.
No. Wealth is only created in a mutually beneficial action. Otherwise it is simply transferred. By your logic, I could force you to give me your wallet and claim I've created wealth. As Paul points out above, if you enslave a population you have not created wealth, even if you force them to do something productive. You have merely taken wealth from them. Obviously, the population in your description preferred to eat fruits from the trees and sleep all day long. You even stated so yourself. Just because you force them to do something that you think is more valuable doesn't mean they are richer for it. Obviously, if that population valued electricity and products from factories, they would have already chosen to do that work themselves. The fact that you have to force them to do it proves you are not creating wealth. You are stealing it.
Just ask the enslaved person if he feels he is better off after you came along than before, when he could sleep all day like he wanted. Just because you, the slave-driver, can say you're better off doesn't mean the slave is. In fact, he will tell you he is worse off. (Again, if he felt he was better off doing what you're making him do, you wouldn't have to force him to do it. He would do it voluntarily.) This unequivocally proves you have not created wealth. You have merely stolen it. You are better off because someone else is worse off...you have benefitted at the expense of someone else...you have gained, because someone else has lost. Wealth has not been created in your slave scenario. It has merely been transferred.