GRosado

He talks about it in the Blank Slate book. He says he was a follower of the Anarchist thought of Bakunin.

He used to be anarchist but he said the moment that changed him was the riots in Montreal when the police went on strike basically at a certain time the police would stop working & he believed that people would still act lawful but clearly from the word riot they didn't.

I think this neglecrs to much of the work put behind the Credit Theory of money as expouunded by David Graeber. It holds alot of weight historically.

Steve Keen predicted the Chinese crash with the Minsky software model. There must be some truth to the post Keynesian method. He also predicted the housing bubble. I think a synthesis is in order.

Austrians call economics Cattalactics

So you're saying it would be pointless to vote on referendums that increase freedom such as Drug legalization, marriage freedom etc ? Edit: I agree with Frosty except in voting for UKIP they are pretty close to being fascists. Based on this political compass chart http://www.politicalcompass.org/uk2015 I would vote for either the Conservatives or Liberal Democrats. Also in regards to how to dismantle the state I think it would be foolish to say as I have heard before somewhere else on this board that the state will cease to exist after a time of recognition of the NAP & Peaceful Parenting. It sounds like Marxist nonsense of the state withering away.

Did you even read it? "Value: Historic vs. Intrinsic There is a basic confusion here. The confusion rests on a mixing up of two very different proposi­tions: (1) gold and silver are his­torically valuable; and (2) gold and silver have intrinsic value. The first proposition is indisputably correct; in fact, there are few eco­nomic or historical statements that could be said to be more absolute. Professor Mises has built his whole theory of money on the fact that gold and silver (especially gold) were first valued because of properties other than their mone­tary function: brilliance, malle­ability, social prestige, and so forth. It was precisely because people valued these metals so highly that they were to become instruments of trade, i.e., money. Since they are so readily market­able, more so than other goods, they can become money." It was a rhetorical question, it was in regards to your statement of why does it matter if it isn't being used productively & laying idle & it's obvious that it shouldn't be made idle because it will increase productivity therefore leading to economic growth or in the case of money be lent to accomplish the aforementioned. In regards to collecting interest if someone prefers not to collect interest then it's their choice it's foolish though there is obviously a net benefit to storing it at a depository institution. Forget it I gave you the page to read it but it seems you don't want to read it so I won't discuss the Paradox of Thrift any further. I would like to point out that I never responded to you talking about the Paradox of Thrift I responded to the other poster & I said that it's related to Hoarding. It isn't my intent to shame you or insult your intelligence however I will not withdraw calling you dogmatic because when you start off a response with "Keynesian Spotted" towards me when I wasn't even talking to you it already let's me know that you're an internet Austrian someone who tows the Mises Institute line proclaiming Keynesianism is nonsense when not even knowing what Keynesianism is. I have encountered many internet Austrians do I have experience.

Hong Kong has almost no natural resources & yet it's an economic miracle so that doesn't mean anything.

I see the pointlessness of voting on federal matters but what about state & local matters especially local?

Here is the link again, read it & you will see why your statement is wrong. http://fee.org/freeman/detail/the-fallacy-of-intrinsic-value Should I even respond to a statement that nonsensical idk. Yes that's very true it is called time preference but it also fundamentally addresses how interest arises which doesn't accrue on money that is hoarded. How can I answer your question if you don't have an understanding of what the Paradox of Thrift is especially when it is reflected in your question? That is why I linked you to the wiki page so you can read what it's about. The topic has shifted to hoarding & it is related to the Keynesian Paradox of Thrift but it seems you don't comprehend that. It puzzles me how it seems you know so little about economics but you have probably comfortably made statements of opinion disguising them as fact especially when it comes to your understanding of other schools of thought. The Austrian school doesn't have all the answers to every occurrence in reality & yes they are wrong in some areas (gasp...) so acting dogmatic isn't going to help anything but further stain the image of such a rich tradition in other words don't be an internet Austrian be open minded & look to the facts/empirical evidence. Keynesians do get some things right but I think they get more things wrong same with the Neoclassical & the New Classicals are cultish lol.

Here is the link again, read it & you will see why your statement is wrong. http://fee.org/freeman/detail/the-fallacy-of-intrinsic-value Should I even respond to a statement that nonsensical idk. Yes that's very true it is called time preference but it also fundamentally addresses how interest arises which doesn't accrue on money that is hoarded. How can I answer your question if you don't have an understanding of what the Paradox of Thrift is especially when it is reflected in your question? That is why I linked you to the wiki page so you can read what it's about. The topic has shifted to hoarding & it is related to the Keynesian Paradox of Thrift but it seems you don't comprehend that. It puzzles me how it seems you know so little about economics but you have probably comfortably made statements of opinion disguising them as fact especially when it comes to your understanding of other schools of thought. The Austrian school doesn't have all the answers to every occurrence in reality & yes they are wrong in some areas (gasp...) so acting dogmatic isn't going to help anything but further stain the image of such a rich tradition in other words don't be an internet Austrian be open minded & look to the facts/empirical evidence. Keynesians do get some things right but I think they get more things wrong same with the Neoclassical & the New Classicals are cultish lol.

Actually fiat is a type of money just one that is manipulable by governments. As to your statement on value being intrinsic I would read this http://fee.org/freeman/detail/the-fallacy-of-intrinsic-value. Value is Subjective But that money isn't being used to produce anything it is an idle resource. It is a terrible idea but the whole point isn't that it be likeable they want something to manipulate in order to direct the economy with more power. You don't know what the paradox of thrift is. You're mischarachterising it. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_thrift

Do you need a camera to use Skype? I mean I haven't explicitly told people about FDR but I have converted a lot of my former classmates towards libertarianism whether it be left or right. I would mention a Stefan video but I was mainly talking about Ron Paul & the Constitution cause at that time Paul was running. I used to even talk to teachers about libertarianism & I may have convinced my US history teacher along with at least starting a discussion with a few others in classes such as AP Euro & ACT/SAT prep. If I ever pointed them to Stefan it would be about child rearing & psychology along with his videos that dealt with violence things like that cause not to bash Stefan he is great but I think there are others who are better when it comes to Economics & Anarchism.

For simplicity let's say saving can be broken down into two categories, Investment Saving & Hoarding Saving. Investment Saving is holding money at an institution where it will be loaned out to businesses such as a bank or credit union while hoarding saving is holding where it can't be lent such as in a mattress or in a persons drywall lol. It seems to me to be a negatively loaded term but who knows if actual economists mean it like such. This is essentially related to the Keynesian Paradox of Thrift problem if you would like to read up on that.

So for answering someone's question I am suddenly a Keynesian smh... If I'm a Keynesian then you're a fool, is that really how you argue a point? you simply call something you don't like or don't understand Keynesian? Let me ask you since you seem so knowledgeable about Keynesians, what is Keynesianism? Who are the real Keynesians? Have you read the General Theory? What does it say? If you don't know anything about Keynesianism except for what is written on its wiki page then you shouldn't speak to it at all because then you will be creating strawmen left & right like you did with me. Now on to your statement. Devalue the currency in relation to what? Boosting Aggregate Demand or discouraging hoarding? I wont speak on Chase's policy because I don't work for them nor am I an apologist for them but I will say as a private company I don't see anything wrong with them changing their policy voluntarily. Also I would like to add that I am an Austrian with sympathies to Neoclassical, New Institutional/Public Choice & Post-Keynesianism

Yup 19 year old here

What the hell? So for answering someone's question as to what the article said I'm a Keynesian? If I'm a Keynesian then you're a fool & that's a straw man. Also can you tell me what a Keynesian is? Who are the real Keynesians? Have you read the General Theory? Just because you don't like something doesn't mean you label it Keynesian what kind of way to argue a point is that? Now onto your statement. What are you responding to exactly? Are you saying devaluing a currency leads to increased aggregate demand? Or are you saying it will lead to people not hoarding? What is the point you're making. I will not speak on Chase's policy because that has no relevance to my statement.

They want to discourage saving in order to stimulate consumption spending too increase aggregate demand & grow the economy but with cash it's impossible to stop people from hoarding.

Of course the empirical literature differentiates between the short run effects (small decrease in employment level & increased purchasing power) & long run effects(reduced employment growth & lower labor turnover). It's not a stupid Keynesian argument it's an empirical argument & labeling it as such seems like a way to dismiss it without rebutting it while at the same time winning over others with an emotionally charged word that many people on here cringe at. If we aggregate the labor market we see that labor demand is leaning towards inelasticity hence why in aggregates we see small decreases from the minimum wage on the level of employment. That being said the minimum wage does crush smaller businesses since they don't have economies of scale compared to Walmart or Target which can absorb the costs. I will have to look into the data on that because from what I've seen & heard businesses aren't investing in new projects they are simply maintaining depreciating capital but I could be wrong I need to read more into that. The spending isn't impossible or hard to measure its easy, it's called investment spending. But I know what you're saying I don't think any economist looks at investment as a short run phenomena though so I don't see where you're getting that from.

A minimum wage increase actually has small negative effects on the level of employment because the labor demand is inelastic. However it does have larger negative effects on employment growth.

Huh?? Switzerland is 5th in economic freedom that's hardly socialist.

Stock markets help companies raise financial capital for their needs

Yea I made a mistake. You could've simply said I got it wrong instead of making a snide remark saying I didn't attend Latin.

That is basically Panarchism. That's something I wouldn't mind as long as there is some sort of guarantee to my right to opt out. I think your misinterpreting him, I think he is equating Voluntary with Voluntarism. I don't think I put that correctly lol.

Yes that's spot on except I visualized it within the actual Hayekian Triangle but that doesn't matter. This is excellent to say the least.