Daniel Unplugged

Thanks

I just watched a video where Adam Kokesh took the #rubblebucketchallenge and nominated Stefan to do the same. You can guess what the challenge involves. It is done to show solidarity with the victims of war, especially Palestinians. I don't know how to link a youtube video, so if someone else could, it would be appreciated.

No. Free market money is a good thing. Whether it is inflationary or deflationary is secondary.

I'm a free market kind of guy. I consider it good overall when prices (including the price of labor) move up or down in line with market forces. Of course it is not good for an employee to have their wage cut, but if that is what the market demands, then overall, I consider it to be a good thing. Yes, only sometimes does the effect I described above help to allow the price of labor to move in line with the market. None of the arguments that inflation causes harm are invalidated by my argument. I agree that the net effect of inflation is harmful, and oppose government induced inflation.I personally, have no problem presenting an argument that opposes my stated position, as long as it is a valid argument. A failure on my part to acknowlege a valid opposing argument, makes me biased, affects my credibility, and would indicate that I am not seeking the truth, but am only seeking reinforcment of my current position. There is enough people doing that, I will not be one of them. Was that post meant for my other current thread? It seems out of context here.

In the short term, there would be inflation, since gold would continue to be mined, hence, an increase in the money supply without a corresponding increase in the size of the economy. Eventually though, gold would cease to be mined, because eventually the value of gold would drop below the cost of producing it. Note that gold is used for things other than money, so in reality, there would still need to be some mining to allow for it's use in jewellery and industry.Yeah, I don't believe government statistics either. Politicians lie, never take them at their word.The US, the EU and Japan are zombie economies. They won't come back to life, but will slowly rot away.

ThanksYour initial desire to criticize my argument is completely natural, given that you presumably prefer (so do I) a gold standard to the current system, and that my argument weakens one of the arguments used to justify a gold standard. Great work for telling your lizard brain where to go (compliment). A doubling in size, but I never mentioned growth and 100% in the same sentence. Enough said.

I'm not saying a gold standard would be a good thing, even though it may be preferable to our current system. What would be good is free market money, and I don't know what type of money that would be.

Please read my posts again. It's all there.

Agreed.What is FTW?

Dude, there was virtually no useful information in that entire post.

Only in a government run institution would such a balls up occur, and only in a government institution could such a balls up be blamed on the people who used to be running things and be gotten away with. There is (almost) no level of incompetence, corruption, manipulation or fascism that the people will not let their government get away with. People get the government's that they are willing to tolerate. The only exceptions are revolutions. Neither Hitler, Mao, Stalin or Kim Il Sung had a revolution from their people. People really just don't care what their rulers do to them. They accept that their rightful place on Earth is that of a slave. It's easier than standing up for something.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by market anarchist. I was under the impression that market anarchist, individualist anarchist and anarcho capitalist were all the same thing.How is it possible to support free markets yet reject capitalism, since capitalism is a manifestation of the free market?

I intentionally did not mention the role of banks, or the many other factors that can affect the inflation rate. I find it best to focus on one factor at a time, in order to ensure clarity, and avoid an information overload, not to mention that I am not motivated to write an entire textbook explaining everything in economics. Thanks for the info.

I just modified the OP to include definitions, sorry and thanks.Yes I know inflation in a state monopoly is theft, and immoral. I was not, nor would I, advocate it for that reason (it's immoral). Note that the theft aspect of state monopoly inflation barely affects half of people, since half of people hold bugger all dollars (I dont know the exact figures, buy I think about half of Americans have less than $1000 in the bank). If inflation is 3% then the inflation 'tax' is only $30 per year. It is of course, still theft, and still immoral. Anybody who owes more dollars than they have, actually benefits from inflation, due to the reduction in the real value of their debt, and that is most certainly more than 1% of the population. The theft aspect of inflation affects people in proportion to the number of dollars they hold, so if a business keeps a lot of dollars, they lose a lot of purchasing power. Inflation affects all prices equally (including wages), so there is (almost) no net benefit or loss to a person who keeps few dollars in the bank (their wage goes up by 3% and the price of the goods they goes up by 3%. It cancels out exactly). It wouldn't. What did I say that caused you to infer that that was I meant? Maybe I was being unclear. I specifically said 'if the market allows/demands it'.What you are referring to is a situation where the market would not allow it. Where I am in Australia, that is super dooper illegal. I'm not certain about the US, but I suspect the law is similar. It is not, however, immoral. I disagree that that solves the morale problem. Sure, the employees may accept the lower wage, and continue to work, but it would surely adversely affect morale in the workplace if workers were routinely getting fired, and then rehired at a lower price.There is a million arguments why inflation is harmful, and I mentioned that too. The point of this thread is not to discuss those arguments, but to discuss the argument I presented on the OP.

To increase profits of course. Everybody wants lower prices for what they purchase. Employers are no different to consumers in that regard. Notwithstanding what I said in the OP, employers will always demand, and receive, a reduction in wages, if, and only if, the market allows it. Granted, only rarely does the market demand lower real wages, a big exeption being the US in the last 30 years. Don't forget that the US is far from a free market.

It is often noted that during the 19th century, when gold was money, there was long periods of deflation. I will explain here why this occured, why it could have been otherwise, and why a gold standard does not mean there will be deflation. It is said that the deflation of the 19th century was caused by the great increases in productivity due to the industrial revolution. This is not true per se. During the 19th century, the productivity in the production of consumer goods increased by 100%, but prices (I'm making these numbers up here, but they are about right and their exact value is not important) fell by only 20%. If the above theory was true, prices would have fallen by 50% (100%/200%). What causes the price of consumer goods relative to gold, is the relative productivity of consumer goods production vs the relative productivity of gold production, not just the productivity of the production of goods. Since consumer goods productivity increased by 100% and prices fell by 20%, we can infer that the productivity of gold production increased by 60% over the same period (160%/200%=80%= change in relative productivity of gold production=change in relative prices=20% price reduction) The price decrease in the 19th century is exactly what one would expect, given that gold is a non-renewable resource, and that the easy to mine gold is gold that gets mined first. It could, however, have been otherwise. If gold productivity increased faster than consumer goods productivity, perhaps due to a new mining technique or a new discovery of a rich seam of gold, then prices would have increased. If we ever (I suspect we will soon) return to a gold standard, it is by no means certain that we will have deflation, even though it may be likely.

I'm no Keynesian, but there is a reason why 2-3% Inflation is good for the economy. I'm not saying that this reason outweighs all the reasons why inflation is bad either. For the purpose of this post, inflation=price inflation=an increase in overall prices in the economy. Real wage=nominal wage/inflation rate=purchasing power of wages. In the absence of inflation, it is damn near impossible for real wages to fall in line with market forces. For starters, It's pretty much illegal to cut someones nominal wage. It is also very very bad for employee morale. Bad employee morale is bad for business, so businesses are often willing to pay slightly higher than market wages, in order to avoid the employee backlash of a nominal wage cut. If the market demands a real wage cut, and employers are unable/unwilling to provide it, it results in an oversupply of labor (unemployment), and incidently, a profit margin that is somewhat smaller than it should be. A small 2-3% inflation negates this problem, since it allows employers to cut their employees real wages by 2-3%, by having a nominal wage freeze. This way, real wages can fall (if the market demands it), the employees don't revolt, supply and demand are kept in balance, and resources are allocated efficiently. It all comes down to the psychology (and lack of economic literacy) of employees. (Of course not always) employees prefer a nominal wage rise of 1% with 3% inflation over a 1% nominal pay decrease with no inflation, even though they are actually worse off.

The thing about 'no hierarchy', is that if it is applied consistently, theft, murder and rape must be permissible, since nobody holds ownership (hierarchical control of) thier own body or their property.

I'll start with how communists define exploitation. If one person employes another, and makes a profit on that employment, then the employee is being exploited. The theory goes that all of the product of the employees labor, rightly should go to the employee. Therefore, any business that makes a profit from employing people, is exploiting their workers, regardless of their working conditions, wages or consent. Of course, communists do not apply the same standard to communism, in which 0% of a persons labor product goes directly to them (from each according to his ability, to each according to his need). What a person gets is determined by the state, regardless of the product of their labor. If capitalism is exploitation on a small scale, then communism is exploitation on a grand scale, but don't expect them to admit this fundamental contradiction in their worldview. There 2 main definitions of anarchy going around. The first is 'no hierarchy', which anarcho communists (pretend to) subscribe to. They extend it to a hierarchy on capital. That is, ownership (which is by definition hierarchical) of capital is forbidden. Also, employment, which is also heirarchical, is forbidden. So basically, they are just communists, albeit without the period of state socialism prior to communism. The other definition of anarchy is 'no rulers', or 'no coercive hierarchy', which anarcho capitalists subscribe to. Heirachy is perfectly OK, as long as it is voluntary, such as in employment, or when on private property. Ancaps recognize private property (including private capital). The theory goes: You own yourself, therefore you own the product of your labor. If the product of your labor is capital (or if you trade for it), then you own that capital.

A society that values equality above freedom, will end up with neither. A society that values freedom above equality, will end up woth a great deal of both - Milton Friedman

What you are looking at is the rating for each individual post. To see a members total rating for all their posts, click on their picture.

Thanks for the info people. For now I will continue not to worry about eating GM foods. Look at it this way: Ethanol is poisonous, if you consume a sufficient quantity, your heart will stop beating. Yet, I sometimes (not too often) consume 2 litres of 5% ethanol solution in a day, so yeah, GMO doesn't really bother me much.

Yes, I know.When I say GM, I am referring specifically to altering the genes/modifying the dna in a lab, by technological means. I am not referring to natural selection or 'human selection' as has occurred in the past.Seriously, is that what a natural banana looks like? What are the blueberry looking things? Are you saying that there is no underlying theory behind it? Even a bad/untested one? I pick and eat wild blackberries. (I assume) they are in their natural state. Just nitpicking, sorry, I just thought that statement was a bit strong....a minute or two later: The blackberries I pick are now resistant to certain herbicides, so I withdraw that point...trying to come up a better example.

I often hear people hear people saying that GM foods are not safe to consume. Is there any evidence for that assertion? FYI, here is where I'm currently at: Say a farmer grows some corn that is genetically modified to increase yield or resist pests. I can't see how eating it would hurt me. My digestive system would extract the nutrients and expel the rest as per usual. There is no possibility of my cells being contaminated with GM dna from the corn. What is the theory behind the assertion that GM foods are not safe?

If god is all powerful, then I must have no power. Therefore (assuming God exists) it is God's will that I am certain he doesn't exist, and I don't have the power to change my mind even if I wanted to.