GRosado

They never got into a disagreement over fractional reserve banking they simply have two different views of what inflation is which leads to different conclusions for fractional reserve banking if you follow one or the other.Rothbard changed Mises work because he originally was writing MES as a college version of Human Action but expanded on mises & the thing he changed was the definition of Inflation that Mises put forward.It might be a marginal issue in a free society but it is essential to the foundations of ABCT.My opinion: I lean towards Mises because his definition would allow for FRB & currency's that aren't backed by a commodity. So I think that is allowing for more choice in currency while according to Rothbard currency has to be backed by a commodity which effectively limits choice.

Well if its defined the Rothbardian way then there is no room for a fractional reserve banking system in the Austrian economic system. However if it's defined the Misesian way then there is room for a fractional reserve banking system in Austrian economic system, if there is a demand for credit that has been created then there isn't inflation so then ABCT will have to go in depth about FRBs relation to the business cycle & might have to redefine money as Exogenous rather than Endogenous.

While reading through MESwPM I noticed that Rothbards definition of inflation differs significantly from Mises's. Rothbard's- The process of issuing pseudo warehouse receipts or, more exactly, the process of issuing money beyond any increase in the stock of specie, may be called inflation. Mises- In theoretical investigation there is only one meaning that can rationally be attached to the expression Inflation: an increase in the quantity of money (in the broader sense of the term, so as to include fiduciary media as well), that is not offset by a corresponding increase in the need for money (again in the broader sense of the term), so that a fall in the objective exchange-value of money must occur. How did Rothbard deviate from Mises? I find it very strange because usually Rothbard is seen as expanding on Mises but here he has changed his work. I think that both definitions have different ramifications on ABCT but I could be wrong. What does everyone else think?

Well I'm sorry I couldn't service your needs even though I answered your questions. So if your goal was to simply criticize me, mission accomplished.

Market Anarchist is pretty self explanatory.Market Anarchist & Anarcho-Capitalist are the same thing just different terms.Individualist Anarchism is not the same as the other two although they have similarities but its a huge misunderstanding to say they are the same. Like I said before they define Capitalism historically or as they call it Actually Existing Capitalism.Hmm I don't think you could say Capitalism broadly is a manifestation of the free market because there are so many different types of Capitalism that you sort of have to narrow it down. So there are some better labels to avoid confusion with other Anarchists they are Market Anarchist, Free-Market Anarchist or Libertarian Anarchist.

Social/Individualist Anarchists define Capitalism as it has occurred historically. So Anarchists aren't particularly against Free Markets they are just against Capitalism. That's where the big misunderstanding lies.I have had discussions with Anarchists & you just have to either clarify what you mean in terms or use their terms, I chose the latter & still do calling myself a Market Anarchist instead of AnCap in order to avoid confusion when talking to someone.

I'm a senior & I'm graduating in a few days but I'm 18 there isn't a problem with graduating at 18. But I have digressed, aren't online classes offered in Michigan they do it in Florida & I thought it was a nationally offered option.

The person you were talking to most likely didn't mean it along the lines of Atheism actually being a religion. It was probably more along the lines of calling atheists Dogmatic or you a Dogmatic atheist.

All ideological factions have this in common whenever there is a crowd. It's called Deindividuation. Gustave Le Bon, Leon Festinger & Philip Zimbardo have excellent books on this subject.

Yea I live in Orlando Florida & in the city people used to hold events where they would feed the homeless but OPD began cracking down on them. From experience my family & I were giving food to the homeless & we got threatened with arrest & kicked out of this park next to lake Eola. Shit sucks.

He defines Capitalism in the same way as many other Anarchists. Anarchists are generally supportive of a free market but they have this antagonism towards the word Capitalism.

True I would use the U6 measurement which is how they measured unemployment in the 80's, correct me if I'm wrong.

The legitimate unemployment rate is somewhere around 12% I think

Anarcho-Capitalism isn't the real Anarchism but at the same time it's a distinct strand that Anarchists don't understand.

Real Wages are on the decline because prices are rising, the US dollar is depreciating. In other words the purchasing power of the dollar is declining. It isn't the growth in government that has affected it, it is the existing government control over the money supply that had caused it. International labor competition drives down nominal wages which is a measure of wages in monetary terms but purchasing power is the main determinant of changes in real wages. So offshoring doesn't affect real wages. Also Real wages is the proper way to say it so disregard anything said otherwise. That's why nominal is different from real but some people don't know the difference until they look it up on the internet. Please elaborate on how debt & taxes reduce real wages? Not only that but China is manipulating their currency on the foreign exchange market & purposefully depreciating the yuan in order to make their exports more appealing. So it's cheaper for companies to hire labor in China.

This a an excellent book so far & it is very informative of the origins of Arab culture & how it is affecting the world today. Although I am not finished I highly recommend it to anyone who enjoys reading about foreign policy, culture & international politics.

Toilet Paper, utilities(water,electricity), Gas, maybe Telephones. Saying gas doesn't make sense doesn't make sense at all. costs for these alternatives are shocking to say the least, but that's why me & Daniel made the distinction between Short Run & Long Run Price Elasticity of Demand, so refer to previous posts on that. They may seem to be but you never know one day a company may find out how to, almost nothing is impossible. Definitely not mostly due to innovation in subsitutes... its the availability of substitute goods, the duration of price increases, Consumer necessity & the amount of disposable income the consumer has. "Its really not good business strategy to drive up barriers to entry to protect a monopoly. It might be profitable in the short run, but it just increases the amount of resources allocated to innovating a product that renders your monopoly obsolete, taking all the market share. " Not to be rude or insult you but I truly feel that you don't know what your talking about & let me speak as to why. How is a monopoly keeping out competitors not good business strategy? That's like saying a boy trying to get the girl he likes by keeping other guys away from her is a bad way to get the girl he loves. The monopoly is not trying to be more profitable when raising barriers to entry, its trying to keep competition out & if anything the monopoly will incur high costs that would reduce their profit margin which goes directly against what you said. If resources cannot be allocated into the X industry due to the monopoly's high barriers to entry the resources will be allocated to other industries in the short run & possibly the long run, there isn't a one way channel that resources are allocated down as you stated in different terms. It would take the entrepreneur a huge amount of resources & time to break into the X industry so many will be discouraged from attempting to do so. Innovation on its own does not render a monopoly obsolete & to say such is to severely overstate the power of the innovation against the monopolies barriers & even if the innovation does allow the entrepreneur to break into the X industry the monopoly isn't just gonna vanish into thin air, its gonna fight till its dying breath & could possibly make a comeback.

I never said it's immoral nor am I arguing that it's totally coercive, what I'm saying is that a monopoly has coercive elements to it. Nor am I saying it's immoral to act in an individualistic manner & I haven't even given any signals that read collectivism lol.Competition does not just spring & would be kept out for a very! very! long time due to the monopoly's power also known as 'high barriers to entry'.You say always but that's getting into epistemology & your basically substituting your own version of the Rational Actor model into that equation. You have no way of knowing that everyone's preferences are too buy low & sell high. Also the price mechanism isn't predicated on the model you have suggested. In the short run certain goods have an almost totally inelastic demand & that's something that can't be denied. Your very correct in the long run demand will become more elastic but I'm saying that barriers to entry may prevent that for a large period of time.But hey like I said I might be wrong to think that a monopoly has coercive elements to it. No I'm not twisting words & I put the definition in one of my previous posts, so I don't think you read it all the way through. The definition was taken from Wikipedia so it's not anything "intentionally" misconstrued. You know you took a personal shot at me & then said you didn't? That's being hypocritical is it not?

I'm assuming you know about the concept of Price Elasticity of Demand. If not just tell me & I will explain it or you can find the definition online.The coercive elements would be like I described before.If there is a good with inelastic demand the monopoly can engage in profiteering & the consumer only has one choice which is to buy it or not. If the good is lets say Gas then people are gonna need it & any change in price will increase or decrease the quantity demanded by very little. Of course there are alternatives such as biking but that is inefficient & highly improbable that people who commute far too work will be willing to take such an alternative.So if I use the definition from my previous post I can construct it out as coercion.One Party(Gas Company) uses some form of pressure(Horizontal integration) on another party(Gas Consumer) to induce a desired response(consume about same quantity of gas while paying a higher price) usually having a strict choice in such a way victim can't escape(consumer needs gas to travel to workplace & other areas such as grocery stores, so going without purchasing gas is harmful to the consumer livelihood).

That is fucking terrible

I get what your sayingIt's like the People I've encountered on other forums or here who have said they are knowledgeable or have an interest in economics & when I talk to them about economics they only know what the Austrian School says, it kind of saddens me.

I get what your saying but wouldn't a regular monopoly have coercive elements to it? Coercion is the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner by use of intimidation or threats or some other form of pressure or force, and describes a set of various different similar types of forceful actions that violate the free will of an individual to induce a desired response, usually having a strict choice or option against a person in such a way a victim can't escape.I just see a monopoly on a good with inelastic demand as coercive to the buyers but I could be wrong.

What is the difference between a coercive monopoly & monopoly?

Yea I've been applying for months now to every place around my area with no gains. I don't think it's only the minimum wage that's affecting me personally, I have no job experience & I'm still in high school so I don't think employers want to take a risk with me.

She never mentioned it & I thought it would go somewhere. But it's my fault for not asking earlier.