kesler12

The LBGT cause would need justification simply due to the fact that it is a radical departure from modern conventions. But by all accounts, it doesn't seem to offer any, so... Is it subject to moral criticism?

This brings up an interesting side topic. Many in the LBGT community use the altar of moral relativism to defend their lifestyle. Of course they are not relativists in the strict sense (since they accept that some things are objectively wrong such as theft, rape, murder, etc), but only with regards to who they choose as partners. Is there any way that such a position can be legitimately criticised, or is it just plain unfalsifiable?

Problem is, everyone claims their school of thought is the most in tune with nature. I'll need some clarification on what system you actually identify with (chicago, austrian, keynsian, etc). It sounds like you are coming from an anarcho-primitivist stance! I have ambitions of doing just that, but prices are far too high now. I'd rather wait until the inevitable hyperinflation strikes, and precious metals become an invaluable commodity. If I get my hands on enough physical silver, I ought to have the purchasing power needed to get a run-down old mill or a mine. Something that people will need in a post industrial society, something that produces lots of disposable income. I suggest you lads all do the same! The next 10 years or so will be a good time to unleash your inner capitalist

What will the relationship between precious metals/fiat currency look like during a hyperinflation? Some have noted that they have an inversely proportional balance in that, when one strengthens, the other weakens. Is the relationship really that simple and linear?

Now you go so far as to attribute sinister motives for my appearance here? Get real. I am here to learn information from those who portend to have reached a consensus on the matter of central planning. If I find those answers to be unsatisfactory, then I will say so. If you are so shallow as to take offense from this (and are unable to see past your own prejudices), then your in the WRONG forum. My mind is not made up on this issue, which is clearly more than you can say I don't necesarily 'want' anything, I'm just wondering whether such an arrangement could overcome the calculation problem. If a nation of people got together and decided to try out this dangerous experiment, could it be done (even theoretically) in the way I posit? Also, would you be able to go into more detail on why prices are so contingent on spontaniety, and why they would evaporate with even minor social tampering? Your criterion seems to be arbitrary, given that todays free market continues to function even with large numbers of regulations imposed by the state.

You obviously have an axe to grind. FYI, I'm not here to 'JAQ off', as the saying goes. Reframe your answer in a way that is absent of this supremacist fanboyism.

But what if you could arrange communitys of several hundred or even several thousand people, which broadly emulate the functions of a given economic sector? This would enable a real world evaluation of prices, crucial to avoiding the problems traditionally associated with centralised economys. What if a number of such simulacrums were set up in the interest of redundancy, with transactions being recorded and filtered into a computer in real time, where they could be subjected to statistical analysis, in order to not just get a median estimate but the best estimate possible? By setting up a free market environment where individuals have privately owned capital, and are isolated from the influence of the outside world, they can mutually supply each other with goods, thus providing an exchange ratio which can be used by society at large to convey those numerical expressions (in the form of a price index).

That doesn't really answer my question. I wanted to know whether a centrally planned economy could overcome the issues of price evaluation, by using a limited free-market simulacrum.

Can't you have free-market exchange on a micro-level, without necessarily requiring the whole economy to do so? (Think of a petri dish arrangement, which demonstrates the fluctuating value of material goods) To some extent, isn't this how the NASDAQ obtains price evaluations?

Hi there, I am a newbie to FDR (and to economics). The salerno video raises a number of interesting questions for me. Why does abolishment of most privately earned capital eliminate the existence of a market (and therefore, exchange)? Why do you need exchange to determine prices?