# Think Tank > Austrian Economics / Economic Theory >  Are Austrian Economists delusional?

## Seraphim

I need reinforcements. My friend just called Austrian economists delusional (actually he stated DELUSIONOMICS). I want to compile sources and rational arguments of OTHERS to throw in his face. 

I need to rally some troups here ladies and gents, please help me?

A combination of personal experience, sourced links, real practical evidence...anything based on rational thought and logic. Please and thank you. The best replies will be sent to him to read. He thinks giving the Federal Reserve more power is a good idea and that debt issued currency does not result in perpetual and unpayable debt (on a macro scale). DELUSIONOMICS. LOL! $#@!in' idiot.

Help please

----------


## ibaghdadi

I'll be back.

But to start a short history of money from Rome to Zimbabwe would be in order.

----------


## Seraphim

Here is an example of what I just asked him:

*Who funds the wars? Who profits from them? Where do they get their money? Who funds and owns the mass media corporations/State media that sell the wars (and other ideas) to the public. Sell, convince, persuade, coerce...use any word you will. It's a simple matter of FOLLOW THE MONEY. 

So in addition to my above questions: Why do you believe we need centralized economic planning? Does this strike you as anti-liberty, or as positive? Or is liberty a negative thing? Do you think economics and liberty are mutually exclusive? Or do you believe liberty in the practical world must fundamentally be founded in economics (not just on a personal level, but a provincial level, municipal level, national level)? 
*

Once he answers it will be easier to know what type of person he really is. I.e closet autharitarian who believes in freedom for him and few others, just a moron, a good hearted person who is just misguided etc etc.

----------


## AlexMerced

Have him listen to some of the Mises U stuff, or have him watch my video on the austrian business cycle theory.

There's a link to it in the newest article at LibertyIsNow.com actually that new article should be an enlightening read for him.

----------


## rp4prez

Here's a few things that should knock him back on his ass and put the burdon of proof on him to prove his point of view.  I've used this stuff with a few liberals and they always attack my sources.  You be the judge of my sources and let me know what you think.  Can't wait to hear what happens when you send him this stuff!

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...ives_up_1.html

Peer reviewed articles from above link:
http://www.economics.harvard.edu/fac...tober_2009.pdf 
http://www.volkerwieland.com/docs/CCTW%20Mar%202.pdf 
http://www.economics.harvard.edu/fac..._socialism.pdf 

Reinhardt and Rogoff's papers in above link:
http://www.econ.berkeley.edu/~cromer/RomerDraft307.pdf 
http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~dromer/pap...ERJune2010.pdf 
http://www.economics.harvard.edu/fac..._Time_Debt.pdf 

Comment on Krugman's blog that cites the Alesina article that's linked above:
http://community.nytimes.com/comment...d=11#comment11 



> Now, in classical Keynesian theory, it makes little difference whether the deficit is created by cutting tax rates or increasing spending. Modern economic theory, however, has a very different view. As Alesina et al. show, a deficit created by cutting taxes actually does stimulate an economy. A deficit created by raising spending actually does not.


This one came out today, should be fun. 

http://money.cnn.com/2010/08/11/news...tune/index.htm




> Despite the many differences between Japan and the US, there is one similarity that continues to matter most in the risk management model my colleagues and I use at Hedgeye, our research firm -- debt as a percentage of GDP. Now that the US can't cut interest rates any lower, the only option left on the table is what the Fed just announced it would start doing -- buying Treasury debt. And that could lead the country to the brink of collapse: According to economists Carmen Reinhart & Ken Rogoff, whose views we share, crossing the 90% debt/GDP threshold is the equivalent of crossing the proverbial Rubicon of economic growth. It's a point from which it's almost impossible to return.


This should probably be a good start to educate him.

----------


## Andrew-Austin

> I need reinforcements. My friend just called Austrian economists delusional (actually he stated DELUSIONOMICS). I want to compile sources and rational arguments of OTHERS to throw in his face. 
> 
> I need to rally some troups here ladies and gents, please help me?
> 
> A combination of personal experience, sourced links, real practical evidence...anything based on rational thought and logic. Please and thank you. The best replies will be sent to him to read. He thinks giving the Federal Reserve more power is a good idea and that debt issued currency does not result in perpetual and unpayable debt (on a macro scale). DELUSIONOMICS. LOL! $#@!in' idiot.
> 
> Help please


So has he provided any arguments? Going off your post he has not. Its not really possible to respond properly if all he is saying is "Austrian economics is delusional/dumb". 

If you just throw him material he will just say the same to it. Don't let yourself be put on the defensive if all he is giving you is rhetoric and not real arguments. Ask him to substantiate his rhetoric.

----------


## hugolp

> So has he provided any arguments? Its not really possible to respond properly if all he is saying is "Austrian economics is delusional/dumb". 
> 
> If you just throw him material he will just say the same to it. Don't let yourself be put on the defensive if all he is giving you is rhetoric and not real arguments. Ask him to substantiate his rhetoric.


+100

Your friend is being a bit of a dick. Ask him to back up his "claims".

----------


## rp4prez

> So has he provided any arguments? Its not really possible to respond properly if all he is saying is "Austrian economics is delusional/dumb". 
> 
> If you just throw him material he will just say the same to it. Don't let yourself be put on the defensive if all he is giving you is rhetoric and not real arguments. Ask him to substantiate his rhetoric.


You are absolutely correct!  That's why I just linked to several peer reviewed studies on the subject matter.  He can just send them his friend's way and shift the burden of proof to his friend.  More than likely his friend won't be able to come up with anything, so guess who wins!

----------


## ClayTrainor

> So has he provided any arguments? Going off your post he has not. Its not really possible to respond properly if all he is saying is "Austrian economics is delusional/dumb". 
> 
> If you just throw him material he will just say the same to it. Don't let yourself be put on the defensive if all he is giving you is rhetoric and not real arguments. Ask him to substantiate his rhetoric.


This.  You need to get him to tell you the basis of his assertion and then question him on it.  Don't focus so much on trying to "prove him wrong" and focus on understanding why he thinks the way he does.  Asking the right questions is far more effective than trying to have all the right answers.

----------


## Seraphim

> This.  You need to get him to tell you the basis of his assertion and then question him on it.  Don't focus so much on trying to "prove him wrong" and focus on understanding why he thinks the way he does.  Asking the right questions is far more effective than trying to have all the right answers.


Precisely what I did just before posting this. My post above outlines a bit of what I said. Thanks

----------


## AlexMerced

> This.  You need to get him to tell you the basis of his assertion and then question him on it.  Don't focus so much on trying to "prove him wrong" and focus on understanding why he thinks the way he does.  Asking the right questions is far more effective than trying to have all the right answers.


That is the best way to win a debate, I always respond with questions, and if they don't come to the conclusion themselves you've usally probably weakened their argument for a quick KO

For example, they say

"you need a central bank for price stability"

my response

"why do you want price stability?" or "what is price stability?"

----------


## brandon

Don't even respond to his ad-hominem attacks. Tell him if he has a real argument to make you'll be glad to hear it.

----------


## Seraphim

> That is the best way to win a debate, I always respond with questions, and if they don't come to the conclusion themselves you've usally probably weakened their argument for a quick KO
> 
> For example, they say
> 
> "you need a central bank for price stability"
> 
> my response
> 
> "why do you want price stability?" or "what is price stability?"


Yup I just started doing that with him. I'm going to make him answer questions now.  lol

----------


## bobbyw24

*Why AMI considers the Austrian School as monetarily illiterate and not having done their homework:*

A REFUTATION OF MENGER'S THEORY OF THE ORIGIN OF MONEY -

To view the actual 20 page paper text and its graphic power point presentation, click here:

http://www.monetary.org/mengerrefutation.html

Here below is a two page summary plus communication with the Austrian School

A challenge to the Austrian School of Economics and the Ludwig Von Mises Institute. Of much more general importance than it sounds, obeisance is universally paid to Menger's 19th century re-incarnation of John Law's theory of money, by present day Austrian economists. Menger's origin theory is also at the base (often explicitly) of much so-called libertarian thinking and writing today. For example Robert Nozick uses it to launch his book Anarchy, State , And Utopia, (p.18) one of the Libertarian's "bibles".

This paper most likely deals a "death blow" to this core thesis of the Austrian School, as formulated by Carl Menger, the school's founder. In effect the Austrian's are left without a viable theory of money. It would be difficult to imagine that one could be provided by Von Mises confused and self contradictory book THE THEORY OF MONEY AND CREDIT.The understandable reluctance of "Austrian gatekeepers" to address this issue are documented below.

SYNOPSIS:
The paper challenges Menger on three grounds:

METHODOLOGICAL GROUNDS:
Though it is generally assumed that Menger's theory is at least in part derived from historical evidence, the paper demonstrates that its derivation is entirely theoretical, by showing that all the historically based evidence cited by Menger, is 180 degrees counter to his theory. The paper points out the inappropriateness of attempting to divine an historical event or process with only deductive logic.

RATIONAL GROUNDS:
The paper points out that even within the framework of Menger's scheme, there are two fatal flaws. First the circularity of his reasoning in determining his causes of liquidity, which arises from his use of the "development of the market and of speculation in a commodity" as a cause of liquidity, when in fact it is a definition of liquidity and even Menger uses it as such. The paper explains the crucial difference. This is not quite an example of what has been called "Weiser's Circle". Second, the paper points out that within Menger's scheme, it is not liquidity, but volatility (or lack of it) which is much more important.

FACTUAL GROUNDS:
The paper shows that some of Menger's closely held general views of the stability of gold and silver and their universal use as money, are simply false. In addition the existence of the millennia long dichotomy in the gold-silver ratio between east and west, which Menger seems to be unaware of, appears sufficient to doom his theory.The paper presents some of the factual evidence gathered by William Ridgeway, in the ORIGIN OF METALLIC WEIGHTS AND STANDARDS; by A.H. Quiggin in A SURVEY OF PRIMITIVE MONEY; by Paul Einzig in PRIMITIVE MONEY; and by Bernard Laum in HEILEGES GELD; all as an indication that an institutional origin of money, whether religious or social, is much more likely to have occurred than Menger's assumed market origin. (25 pages, footnoted, charts, a real barn-burner. Suggested donation $20 postpaid; students $10.)

CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE AUSTRIAN SCHOOL:
Attempts to bring this paper to the attention of members of the Austrian School, through their publication, were at first blocked and then ignored, as seen in the following copy of their reply and critique of the paper; and the answer to their critique, to which they have not responded. "Make the most of it" indeed! Lets see if Internet culture can end such academic stonewalling, and flush the Austrians from their ivory towers down at good ole Auburn University.

Read on


http://www.monetary.org/refute.htm

----------


## hugolp

> Attempts to bring this paper to the attention of members of the Austrian School, through their publication, were at first blocked and then ignored, as seen in the following copy of their reply and critique of the paper; and the answer to their critique, to which they have not responded. "Make the most of it" indeed! Lets see if Internet culture can end such academic stonewalling, and flush the Austrians from their ivory towers down at good ole Auburn University.


This is not even good propaganda. Oh yeah, those austrian leaving the good lives, in the mainstream media and mainstream economic theory... 

Also, this was answered in the mises.org forum and the author should be ashamed for just completely distorting the position of austrian economics to then being able to criticize the distorted position he claims as austrian economics: http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/13534.aspx

----------


## bobbyw24

> This is not even good propaganda. Oh yeah, those austrian leaving the good lives, in the mainstream media and mainstream economic theory... 
> 
> Also, this was answered in the mises.org forum and the author should be ashamed for just completely distorting the position of austrian economics to then being able to criticize the distorted position he claims as austrian economics: http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/13534.aspx


Thanks for the link to the counterargument, Hugo. I hadn't seen that

----------


## hugolp

> Thanks for the link to the counterargument, Hugo. I hadn't seen that


This is a shorter take on it. The last answer is good: http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/6816.aspx

----------


## ibaghdadi

> Yup I just started doing that with him. I'm going to make him answer questions now.  lol


Let us know how it goes...

----------


## bobbyw24

> This is a shorter take on it. The last answer is good: http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/6816.aspx


Thanks again--I am still torn between Mises und Zarlenga/Brown.  but I guess since I was raised a liberal Democrat that kinda makes sense.  I know that many people  think that Mises was infallible. I gotta read more of his stuff.

----------


## WaltM

> Here is an example of what I just asked him:
> 
> Who funds the wars?


Bankers & investors




> Who profits from them?


the people who invested in it.




> Where do they get their money?


either by loan or by creation, or by earning it.




> Who funds and owns the mass media corporations/State media that sell the wars (and other ideas) to the public.


Jews





> Sell, convince, persuade, coerce...use any word you will. It's a simple matter of FOLLOW THE MONEY.


How can you be a capitalist and think money is bad?





> So in addition to my above questions: Why do you believe we need centralized economic planning?


Does lack of central planning always equate to Austrian economics?




> Does this strike you as anti-liberty, or as positive?


Doesn't matter, I'm not pro-liberty on every issue. 




> Or is liberty a negative thing?


Freedom is sometimes a bad thing, liberty might be defined differently. 




> Do you think economics and liberty are mutually exclusive?


for the most part, no.




> Or do you believe liberty in the practical world must fundamentally be founded in economics (not just on a personal level, but a provincial level, municipal level, national level)?


Sounds like yes. Elaborate? 





> Once he answers it will be easier to know what type of person he really is. I.e closet autharitarian who believes in freedom for him and few others, just a moron, a good hearted person who is just misguided etc etc.


what kind of person am I?

----------


## hugolp

> Thanks again--I am still torn between Mises und Zarlenga/Brown.  but I guess since I was raised a liberal Democrat that kinda makes sense.  I know that many people  think that Mises was infallible. I gotta read more of his stuff.


Hahaha, no Mises was no infalible, just a clever guy. I was raised a socialist, both my parents are (through my father has become political agnostic with time) so I know where you are coming from. If I had not found a Ron Paul video on Youtube randomly I would still be believing the same lies.

Btw, the Pennsylvania fiat currency discussion of earlier today was interesting and led me to investigate more on the matter. I have found interesting literature about it, but would like to read HB take on it.

----------


## Seraphim

To Walt: your answers are not descriptive enough.

Jews control all media and sell us wars? I'm sure there are Jews (even maybe a majority). But JEWS is just too blanket of a statement that I cannot rationally accept.



Money is bad? When did I say this? I am all in favour of FREE MARKET MONEY. Not Govt. Coersed money that is forced by LEGAL TENDER LAWS, this is what I am against.

----------


## Disconsolate

Depends on what he specifically has issues with. 

I was told once that Austrian students don't do enough math in their econ. As if that was some kind of refutation...

When in reality all of the Ph.D Austrians went through the same calculus 3000120102 graduate school stuff any other economist did.

----------


## Stary Hickory

> +100
> 
> Your friend is being a bit of a dick. Ask him to back up his "claims".


Exactly this, because much of the time they have no interest in true discussion or in seeking out the truth. Often they have other goals like trying to preserve a perception of self worth by never ceding any point. People can be engaged in discussion and have to totally different things going on if one is really seeking intelligent discussion and the other merely wants to feel mentally superior to the other so that they can attain(in their mind) some kind of a higher social standing.

----------


## Seraphim

> Exactly this, because much of the time they have no interest in true discussion or in seeking out the truth. Often they have other goals like trying to preserve a perception of self worth by never ceding any point. People can be engaged in discussion and have to totally different things going on if one is really seeking intelligent discussion and the other merely wants to feel mentally superior to the other so that they can attain(in their mind) some kind of a higher social standing.


Correct. EGO DEFENSE.

He seems to think that being against the Federal Reserve system (and central banks) because it's practical applications both in modern times and historically have shown to be negative equates to conspiracy theory delusions. 

I have only read a short part (will eventually read it all) of The Creature from Jekyll Island and he threw some STUPID article that called the book a collection of conspiracy theory trash not worth even reading. Lol. He has the capacity for intelligence, I went to school with him...We'll see.

By tomorrow I'm sure I'll have an e-mail response from him: whether he reads the peer review PDF's posted on the other page and a couple of Mises Institute lecture I sent him remain to be seen. If he does not then I'll just give up. No use beating a concrete wall with a piece of styrofoam, but if he does then I may have some interesting things to post back up here tomorrow.

----------


## rp4prez

> He seems to think that being against the Federal Reserve system (and central banks) because it's practical applications both in modern times and historically have shown to be negative equates to conspiracy theory delusions.


He's the one that is delusional.  Seriously, think about his argument back.  You provided some great peer reviewed research it's his turn to provide you the same that argue in his favor.

----------


## Danke

Have him join the Mises forum and watch Conza88 rip him a new $#@!.

----------


## theoakman

This is something written by Eric Sprott in 2002.  It reads like a prophecy.

http://www.sprott.com/docs/MarketsataGlance/10_2002.pdf


MARKETS AT A GLANCE ECONOMIC MODELS: WHO NEEDS THEM?
By now it should be obvious to everyone that the economists got it wrong. Worse yet, they keep getting
it wrong. Yes, these are the people with a decade worth of higher education and a veritable alphabet of
credentials after their names: CFAs, CAs, MAs, MBAs, PhDs, etc. Very intelligent people, to be sure,
but they were almost all wrong. For the past three years, the vast majority of them have been predicting
that an economic rebound is just around the corner. How many times have you heard about the everelusive
second half recovery? The answer is three years and counting. The vast majority have also been
predicting an imminent rebound in the stock markets, and coaxing you to buy on every dip. Once again,
they have been wrong. We dont want to demean these well-educated and intelligent people. But whats
going on? Why are the economic models not working? Even economists from independent think tanks
(i.e. not employed by investment banks) have, almost to a man (or woman), been erroneously bullish.
Clearly, something is amiss with the models.
We are not so arrogant to think that we can produce the be-all, end-all model that would explain
everything in the world with precision. Such a task would be impossible. There are too many variables in
this world of ours and the number of combinations in which they can interact approaches the infinite.
What we can do, however, is offer an insightful critique of why the output of these tried and tested
models can be precarious at best, especially in times like these when, in many ways, we are all
experiencing once in a lifetime circumstances. We cannot overemphasize that this is not merely a
downturn in a normal business cycle. The problems go much deeper than that. So we will offer up an
alternative way of thinking about the economy, one that deviates substantially from the mainstream of
economic thinking (as expounded by Keynes, monetarists, and others). It is called the Austrian School of
Economics.
But first, our promised critique of modelling in general. A model is a black box in which relevant
variables are measured and put into the box, in the hopes that the output from the box will be a fair
predictor of what can be expected to happen in the future. Such relevant variables may include things like
interest rates, inflation, inventory levels, the unemployment rate, etc. The black box spews out a
prediction (GDP will grow 3.5%, for example) and the economists all go with it, no questions asked and
very little is done in the way of creative thinking. After all, these models have normally worked fairly
well in the past. But alas, these are not normal times!
Today, so many factors are in play that barely registered on the radar screen in times past. How do
these models, for example, take into account the record levels of financial leverage (debt) of both
corporations and individuals? Or the fact that we just came out of one of the biggest financial bubbles of
all time? How do the models account for rising government debt? Do they take into consideration how
plummeting stock markets around the world impact the behaviour of businesses and individuals? How
about the prospect of skyrocketing pension plan deficits in this adverse investment climate? How about
wars? How can models factor in corporate corruption and the insatiable greed of managers? What about
investor confidence? All of these are nontrivial factors that loom large today. Yet the models surely miss
them all.
Eric Sprott (416) 943-6420 Investment Strategy
Sasha Solunac (416) 943-6448 - 2 - Insight Oct. 4/02
And what about the rising price of oil? At around $31 today, it is the highest it has been in well over a
year. During the bubble, the economists shrugged off the high price of oil as being no longer relevant in
the New Economy. After all, in the age of the internet and lightning-fast telecommunications, what
purpose is to be served by such an Old Economy commodity like oil? Alas, the new economy has come
and gone, and the world is back to its old economy ways. Yet the economists still arent giving much
credence to the negative economic consequences of high energy prices. Whats that about? Surely some
of these bullish models factor in the price of oil? Or is everyone still using the same models they had at
the peak of the bubble? Like old dogs, todays economists cannot seem to learn new tricks.
Its time to throw this black box out the window and learn to think outside the box!
We are of the opinion that investing is more of an art than a science. To be sure, one still needs to be
logical. But the practice of adhering to dogmatic principles is proving to be debilitating indeed. When
times are abnormal, we need to think unconventionally. Sit back, look at whats going on in the world,
and draw your own independent and logical conclusions. There is no magic black box that will explain it
all. Every time you hear a conclusion that was derived from some economic model, step back and think
about whether or not it makes sense in light of what you see happening around you. Take nothing as a
given!
Perhaps one of the flaws of todays economic models is that too much is taken as a given. The virtues of
our current financial system, one that is based on fiat money and the unlimited power of central banks to
print more of it out of thin air, is unfortunately taken as a given. Outside of a rare few in academic circles,
almost no modern economist questions the foundations of this thinking. This foundation is based on the
works of Keynes and monetary theorists who expound that the economy can be managed by
governments in general and central banks in particular. Any economic mishap that occurs (such as a
recession, for example) is a fault of policy implementation, and not a fault of the system. (This situation
is not unlike the sentient, intelligent, and infallible supercomputer in science fiction movies who
commits a fatal blunder and then blames it on human error.)
Mainstream economists may question Greenspan, but they do not question the role of the Fed. They may
question the irrational exuberance of the bubble (always in hindsight, of course), but they do not
question the system that allowed this bubble to come about in the first place. Perhaps this is what is
wrong with todays models. They are not seeing the forest for the trees. But if the foundation is flawed,
then the models will also perforce be flawed.
There is a school of economic thought called the Austrian School of Economics. Because they question
the unquestionable, they are considered fringe by most of the economic intelligentsia. Be that as it may,
their thinking provides valuable insights into whats been going on in the world, and why the mainstream
is getting it wrong. Perhaps years from now, after time takes its course and painful lessons are learned,
this fringe will become the mainstream.
At the crux of their thinking is the notion that the central bank, with its unbridled ability to print paper and
offer unlimited credit into the banking system, creates distortions in the financial markets  distortions
that cause economic agents (businesses and individuals) to behave in irrational ways. In our capitalist
society, free markets are generally encouraged. Only in a free market, after all, can the optimal allocation
of limited resources be achieved. But for some reason, our financial system is such that market forces are
not being allowed to determine interest rates. Rather, interest rates are to be centrally planned by
politicians. So rather than letting borrowers and savers determine what should be the price of money (i.e.
the interest rate), it is incumbent on the central bank to do this for us.
Eric Sprott (416) 943-6420 Investment Strategy
Sasha Solunac (416) 943-6448 - 3 - Insight Oct. 4/02
The problem with any type of central planning is that a disconnect often occurs between what the central
planners want (i.e. politicians) and what is happening on the ground (i.e. reality). Incentives get created
that cause people to behave in less than optimal ways. The distortions can exacerbate themselves, thus
creating a bigger problem in the end  one that will require great pain to correct. The problem would not
have gotten so large if market forces were allowed to act. (This problem, as it pertains today, is excessive
debt.) So state the Austrian economics  the system is flawed.
We need not argue the point that this type of irrational behaviour, incentivized by the central bank, was
running rampant during the bubble. That much is obvious to everyone. Corporations overborrowed and
overspent on projects with dubious investment value, which eventually was shown to be what it is and
this led to the inevitable bust. Valuations plunged and bankruptcies ensued. But what about now? Are
things back to normal? Hardly. The Fed has continued to create conditions for even more irrationality
today, except this time the grieved party will be the consumer.
During times of financial fallout, it is normal (and rational) to adopt a defensive stance. What this usually
means is save your money for a rainy day, only spend money on what you need, and keep your borrowing
to a minimum. But if you look at whats happening around you, this is hardly the case. It is irrational
exuberance, part two. People are borrowing and spending like theres no tomorrow. They are being
pushed to act against their better interests. Granted, nobody is putting a gun to the head of the
consumer, but incentives (market distortions) are being created by the central bank to coax you into
behaving in this irrational way. Borrow and buy a new car, even though the one you have now is perfectly
fine. Mortgage whatever equity you have in your home so you can spend it frivolously to help the
economy. Forget about all the money you lost in the stock market. Forget about the weak economy.
Forget about all the layoffs. Borrow and spend, borrow and spend declare bankruptcy later. The sense
of overconfidence that existed during the bubble still exists today. People still believe that the system
cannot fail. Stay tuned.
According to the Austrian School, it is the central bank, and only the central bank, that creates boom/bust
cycles through the manipulation of money and credit. Furthermore, everything that goes up must come
down. Everything that inflates must eventually contract. To borrow an analogy from the laws of physics,
every bubble must be followed by an equal and opposite bust. It is this logic that the bullish economists,
and thus many individuals, are missing. In spite of the economy coming out of one of the biggest
financial bubbles in the history of mankind, they still think that by manipulating interest rates everything
will be set right. This is just wishful thinking. A whole lot of pain needs to happen between now and then.
All weve felt so far is a pinprick.
When you think about it logically, the whole notion that economic prosperity can be created from ever
mounting piles of debt is seriously flawed. A key fact appears to be forgotten: All debt must eventually
be repaid! Loose money policy on the part of the central bank is not a sufficient condition for real
economic growth. When all is said and done, it is savings that create the real productive opportunities in
the economy, not leverage. It is real savings, not money created from a printing press, that creates real
productive capacity. The world eventually becomes wise to what is real and what is artificial. This is why
Fed policy, and the models that depend on it, are not working. Saving is good. Reckless spending is bad.
It sounds obvious  but politicians, central bankers included, would have you believe otherwise.
As a final point, American economists like to proclaim that things will be different here than they are in
Japan. Monetary easing is being done more aggressively here, they claim, while the Japanese have been
committing one policy blunder after another for the last 13 years. We should give the intelligence of the
Japanese more credit than that! Truth be told, Japan has been pumping money like crazy. With interest
Eric Sprott (416) 943-6420 Investment Strategy
Sasha Solunac (416) 943-6448 - 4 - Insight Oct. 4/02
rates close to zero, monetary policy is about as easy as it gets! Furthermore, they have been propping up
their banking system with tremendous amounts of money, causing the government of Japan to be one of
the most heavily indebted in the world. Alas, it didnt work. They are stuck with the same central banking
system that we have, and it is flawed. By artificially trying to prevent the inevitable contraction from
taking place, all they ended up doing was prolonging it. To claim that the US is going to be any different
appears naïve, to say the least.
The economists dont get it. The central banks dont get it. Governments dont get it. And the pitiable
consumers dont get it. It just aint working.
Sprott Asset Management Inc. is the investment manager to the Sprott Canadian Equity Fund, Sprott Gold and
Precious Minerals Fund, the Sprott Hedge Fund L.P. and the Sprott Hedge Fund L.P. II. Important information
about these funds, including management fees, other charges and expenses is contained in its simplified prospectus
and/or offering memorandum. Please read them carefully before investing. Mutual funds are not guaranteed; their
unit values and investment returns will fluctuate. Performance data represents past performance and is not
indicative of future performance. Performance comparisons are drawn from sources believed to be accurate. This
is not a solicitation.

----------


## WaltM

> Have him join the Mises forum and watch Conza88 rip him a new $#@!.


I won't take recommendations from a guy who can't tell me how he's benefitted from his supposedly esoteric knowledge about contracts and mortgages.

About a guy believes in no right to intellectual property or privacy, thanks. (plus he believes that fractional reserve banking is always fraudulent)

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> I won't take recommendations from a guy who can't tell me how he's benefitted from his supposedly esoteric knowledge about contracts and mortgages.
> 
> About a guy believes in no right to intellectual property or privacy, thanks. (plus he believes that fractional reserve banking is always fraudulent)


You do understand private property and intellectual property are anti-thetical right? Say, if I own 50 pieces of 2x4, and build a chair that someone somewhere has a patent on, I am violating_ their property_? It makes no sense whatsoever. *An idea, cannot be owned, period.*

----------


## Danke

> I won't take recommendations from a guy who can't tell me how he's benefitted from his supposedly esoteric knowledge about contracts and mortgages.


Was I addressing you, Josh?





> About a guy believes in no right to intellectual property or privacy, thanks. (plus he believes that fractional reserve banking is always fraudulent)


Where did I say that?

Please, do me a favor, and put me on your ignore list.

----------


## WaltM

> Was I addressing you, Josh?


I'm addressing YOU.





> Where did I say that?
> 
> Please, do me a favor, and put me on your ignore list.


You didn't, Conza did, I think you'd know what he believes and says (unless he's changed, he's unbanned, by the way).

----------


## WaltM

> You do understand private property and intellectual property are anti-thetical right?


No, I don't. 

At least, I've not heard it justified by somebody who can give a consistent definition of property. 





> Say, if I own 50 pieces of 2x4, and build a chair that someone somewhere has a patent on, I am violating_ their property_?


I'm skeptical that a chair can be patented if it's made by wood. 

But if it is, then yes.

However, not all IP are equal. Copyright, ideas, patents and knowledge are NOT all the same.




> It makes no sense whatsoever. *An idea, cannot be owned, period.*


A patent isn't an idea. 
Nice try. 

Can a book's copyright be protected? (I'm not changing the subject, in fact, I'm noting patents are not copyright)

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> No, I don't. 
> 
> At least, I've not heard it justified by somebody who can give a consistent definition of property. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm skeptical that a chair can be patented if it's made by wood. 
> 
> ...


A Patent is too an idea. Suppose someone came up with the idea to build a new type of engine that revolutionizes space flight. He lives in Buenos Aires. Meanwhile unbeknownst to him, someone across Argentina is also working on a similar concept and design, neither knowing of each other. They each take out a patent on their design which just so happens to be identical. The Argentinian Government gives the patent to the Buenos Aires man, and uses the Police to confiscate the others property, and makes sure no one else can ever design such a system. 

In fact these types of things happen all the time. Especially in the IT industry. Not to mention that the practical argument in favor of IP that it incentivizes innovation is completely demolished when confronted with the fact that businesses have to abide by IP have to shell out millions and billions of dollars in legal fees, hirings, lawyers, etc. to keep track of all the IP and make sure they aren't violating anything. Not to mention that monopolies by necessity foster stagnation, not innovation and increase prices. IP is State privilege.

This is what we mean by "propiertary". You ever wonder why propiertary instruments are so expensive? The State gives a monopoly to that firm, or designer. The State then protects that idea from everyone else by force. If you have the same physical property to build such a device the State will come in evict, and take your property. IP is theft, and an aggression against private property.


PS: I do agree with Old Ducker though, that IP can come about in the Free-Market through contracts. However, if you ever deign to sell your product, someone can just buy it and reverse engineer it if they want to. However, I am in support of the right of businesses to enact NDA's to protect their designs from being sold off by internal employees.

PPS: There are a ton of patents out on chairs.

Here is just one of millions -- http://www.freepatentsonline.com/D408165.html

----------


## psi2941

> My friend just called Austrian economists delusional (actually he stated DELUSIONOMICS).


your friend is right.

theres so much "logic" on this thread but the truth is the world sometimes don't run on "logic"

As in Austrian economist, their usually right about what they say in long term. However in the short term there places to make money.

Lets look at peter schiff, his been calling the housing bubble since 2002-2003, well the housing crisis hit 2007. so that almost 5 years you could have made a huge profit in the housing sector.

with that said, in terms of economics, Austrian way is the best way.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> your friend is right.
> 
> theres so much "logic" on this thread but the truth is the world sometimes don't run on "logic"
> 
> As in Austrian economist, their usually right about what they say in long term. However in the short term there places to make money.
> 
> Lets look at peter schiff, his been calling the housing bubble since 2002-2003, well the housing crisis hit 2007. so that almost 5 years you could have made a huge profit in the housing sector.
> 
> with that said, in terms of economics, Austrian way is the best way.


Yes, Austrians don't look at how to best profit from a bubble (Well, some do -- Faber, Rogers, et. al), but Austrians focus on actual economic policies and their effects. You seem to be confusing finance, with economics. 

Mises also called the Great Depression and the ensuing mess in Austria hence why he turned down the job in Vienna at the Central Bank. He called it years prior. I guess Mises is dumb too. Nevermind the fact he was _right_. 

Of course Austrians are going to call the bubble when it forms. It's easy as hell to spot if you are educated in actual economics (ABCT). Why would he wait to call out what was so plain to see? (Oh yeah, that Ron Paul also called it out when it started...)

PS: If economics doesn't run on logic, and if the world is illogical, that means Austrian Economics is verifiably false, but then you say that Austrian economics is the way to go. Using logic, I have just showed how completely contradictory your statement is. Hence, your statement is either false or true. Economics is either illogical, making the Austrians wrong, or is logical, and the Austrians are right. You can't say that economics is illogical, and the Austrians are right.

----------


## psi2941

> but Austrians focus on actual economic policies and their effects. You seem to be confusing finance, with economics.


i'm not confusing with finance, economic policy sets the the tone of the finance.

I don't think most people, follow economy just because they care about america or weather it goes to hell, most people here follow the economy for personal gain.

therefor economy and investments are closely related

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> i'm not confusing with finance, economic policy sets the the tone of the finance.
> 
> I don't think most people, follow economy just because they care about america or weather it goes to hell, most people here follow the economy for personal gain.
> 
> therefor economy and investments are closely related


Yes, but if the economy of the US was crap, then investments would be crap. Hence, the economy supercedes finance. I still don't understand what you are trying to paint Austrians as...Considering that the most successful investor ever with George Soros was an Austrian -- Jim Rogers. 

As I said before, your statement was ILLOGICAL -- hence false.

----------


## WaltM

> A Patent is too an idea.


I'm not going on a spitting contest with you.

Patents came from ideas, and they become recognized as patents when the USPTO judges that something is unique, profitable and also hard to arrive short of copying. 





> Suppose someone came up with the idea to build a new type of engine that revolutionizes space flight.


Not all inventions are that simple. 

Yes, that's actually a SIMPLE invention for the complex ones out there.

Think about the secret formula of WD 40, Coca Cola and Kentucky Fried Chicken. 

How come nobody has "come up" with a competitor to WD 40 despite nearly 60 years since it's introduction? Is there any doubt THEY CAN'T?




> He lives in Buenos Aires. Meanwhile unbeknownst to him, someone across Argentina is also working on a similar concept and design, neither knowing of each other.


Possible, but that's a simple example. 

WD 40 isn't patented, so when somebody DOES arrive and create a better or similar formula, they cannot sue. But despite the fact they have no protection against their IP, nobody has bothered to violate them, why not? *BECAUSE THEY CAN'T.
*




> They each take out a patent on their design which just so happens to be identical.


Just so happens?

I'm willing to say that's not even hypothetically possible. At least not past a certain number of unique inventions. (given that, neither would take beyond 3 patentable steps without patenting them along the way).

Have you tried convincing your college teach you didn't plagiarize a person's paper?




> The Argentinian Government gives the patent to the Buenos Aires man, and uses the Police to confiscate the others property, and makes sure no one else can ever design such a system.


That's not the purpose of patenting. Nice try.




> In fact these types of things happen all the time. Especially in the IT industry. Not to mention that the practical argument in favor of IP that it incentivizes innovation is completely demolished when confronted with the fact that businesses have to abide by IP have to shell out millions and billions of dollars in legal fees, hirings, lawyers, etc.


So by your logic, if it costs money to protect property, property doesn't exist. 





> to keep track of all the IP and make sure they aren't violating anything. Not to mention that monopolies by necessity foster stagnation, not innovation and increase prices. IP is State privilege.


Why isn't property a state privilege?
*
How about you START BY ACTUALLY GIVING ME A CONSISTENT DEFINITION OF PROPERTY? 
*




> This is what we mean by "propiertary". You ever wonder why propiertary instruments are so expensive?


I don't wonder, I know.

Just as I know crime is expensive compared to compliance.





> The State gives a monopoly to that firm, or designer.


Monopoly is a loser's complaint against property. 

Because you're a loser, you complain somebody has property against your access. 




> The State then protects that idea from everyone else by force.


Just like you protect your life and possession against my access by force, against my will.




> If you have the same physical property to build such a device the State will come in evict, and take your property.


just like the state takes your weapons when you use it improperly




> IP is theft, and an aggression against private property.


property is theft against communists. 




> PS: I do agree with Old Ducker though, that IP can come about in the Free-Market through contracts. However, if you ever deign to sell your product, someone can just buy it and reverse engineer it if they want to.


not if they agreed otherwise.




> However, I am in support of the right of businesses to enact NDA's to protect their designs from being sold off by internal employees.
> 
> PPS: There are a ton of patents out on chairs.
> 
> Here is just one of millions -- http://www.freepatentsonline.com/D408165.html


but you're not in favor of NDA's becoming a uniform default if the market chooses to? you're not in favor of abolishing property protection if enough people chose to?

*BTW, FAIL.

that chair isn't made of simple wood boards. So you can't even stick to the example you allegedly start with.*

----------


## osan

> Exactly this, because much of the time they have no interest in true discussion or in seeking out the truth. Often they have other goals like trying to preserve a perception of self worth by never ceding any point. People can be engaged in discussion and have to totally different things going on if one is really seeking intelligent discussion and the other merely wants to feel mentally superior to the other so that they can attain(in their mind) some kind of a higher social standing.


People want comfort. They will attach themselves to whatever it may be that  makes them comfortable.  Different people derive that comfort in different ways.  Some find it in food, others in drugs and alcohol, while a few wear rubber underwear and get spanked.  There are many dimensions to comfort and this is well enough represented in Maslow's hierarchy.  Emotional comfort may stem from relationships, religion, politics, etc., the latter being one of the big ones.  In that context, people choose the political views that offer them the best fit for comfort in accord with their needs.  This often translates into truth-be-damned, as is most often the case with religion, to cite another example.  Comfort is, for many people, far and away more important to them than truth and this is readily verifiable by observing how their behavior comports itself with respect to their stated belief that truth is ultimately important to them.  If the truth threatens their comfort, they often reject it out of hand.  In many cases, they will become violent and even kill to protect themselves from truths that threaten their comfort sufficiently.

My point here is that when some fundamental aspect of a person's comfort is perceived as being seriously threatened, almost anything is possible in the way of a reaction.  In this case, if Seraphim's nemesis' comfort is threatened by the precepts of Austrian economics, there is a non-trivial likelihood that he will reject them, demeaning and degrading them in direct proportion to the morbidity of the attachement he holds on his current set of beliefs and the threat the offending belief systems poses to them.  If th eattachment is weak and he is simply parroting memes and the opinions of third parties, he may be open to truth.  If the attachment is amok, chances are good no amount of truth will shake them loose.

This is not to say one must change their mind, but only that healthy individuals approach alternate truths with open minds, something the morbid are incapable or unwilling to do.

----------


## Danke

> People want comfort. They will attach themselves to whatever it may be that  makes them comfortable.  Different people derive that comfort in different ways.  Some find it in food, others in drugs and alcohol, while a few wear rubber underwear and get spanked.  There are many dimensions to comfort and this is well enough represented in Maslow's hierarchy.  Emotional comfort may stem from relationships, religion, politics, etc., the latter being one of the big ones.  In that context, people choose the political views that offer them the best fit for comfort in accord with their needs.  This often translates into truth-be-damned, as is most often the case with religion, to cite another example.  Comfort is, for many people, far and away more important to them than truth and this is readily verifiable by observing how their behavior comports itself with respect to their stated belief that truth is ultimately important to them.  If the truth threatens their comfort, they often reject it out of hand.  In many cases, they will become violent and even kill to protect themselves from truths that threaten their comfort sufficiently.
> 
> My point here is that when some fundamental aspect of a person's comfort is perceived as being seriously threatened, almost anything is possible in the way of a reaction.  In this case, if Seraphim's nemesis' comfort is threatened by the precepts of Austrian economics, there is a non-trivial likelihood that he will reject them, demeaning and degrading them in direct proportion to the morbidity of the attachement he holds on his current set of beliefs and the threat the offending belief systems poses to them.  If th eattachment is weak and he is simply parroting memes and the opinions of third parties, he may be open to truth.  If the attachment is amok, chances are good no amount of truth will shake them loose.
> 
> This is not to say one must change their mind, but only that healthy individuals approach alternate truths with open minds, something the morbid are incapable or unwilling to do.


Interesting and insightful post...I think...

----------


## psi2941

> Yes, but if the economy of the US was crap, then investments would be crap. Hence, the economy supercedes finance. I still don't understand what you are trying to paint Austrians as...Considering that the most successful investor ever with George Soros was an Austrian -- Jim Rogers. 
> 
> As I said before, your statement was ILLOGICAL -- hence false.


just because the economy is crap doesn't mean there are places you can make money. i would argue economy sets the tone of investments.

----------


## robert68

> Originally Posted by Austrian Econ Disciple
>  ...





> Why isn't property a state privilege?


It’s not rivalrous and arbitrarily defined by the state.




> *
> How about you START BY ACTUALLY GIVING ME A CONSISTENT DEFINITION OF PROPERTY? 
> *



Can you give a "CONSISTENT DEFINITION OF PROPERTY"?

----------


## theoakman

> your friend is right.
> 
> theres so much "logic" on this thread but the truth is the world sometimes don't run on "logic"
> 
> As in Austrian economist, their usually right about what they say in long term. However in the short term there places to make money.
> 
> Lets look at peter schiff, his been calling the housing bubble since 2002-2003, well the housing crisis hit 2007. so that almost 5 years you could have made a huge profit in the housing sector.
> 
> with that said, in terms of economics, Austrian way is the best way.


A better way to make money after identifying a bubble is to simply take the opposite side of the trade once the peak hits.  All bubbles have an upward slope that approaches infinity.  Once that slope turns, it's time to short the market.  Understanding the fundamentals and being able to identify bubbles allows you to position yourself to make more money than bubble investors would.  Several Austrian minded economists/investors advised buying gold in 2002-2003.  If you simply look at the returns from 2002 to 2007, they were phenomenal.  You didn't even need to be in the bubble market to make the money.

----------


## WaltM

> Its not rivalrous and arbitrarily defined by the state.


I disagree





> Can you give a "CONSISTENT DEFINITION OF PROPERTY"?


property is whatever you can claim, enforce, have respected, recognized, with or without use of force, with or without the assistance of a state. 

A state merely acts on the behalf of the property owner and claimant, this goes the same for any type of property.

One cannot claim he owns land or his bank account balance simply because he has a piece of paper that says so, as such, if another can disrespect, refuse to recognize and violate his so called "property" he would have no recourse or argument, therefore, he has failed to make it his property. (WOW, I managed to not use the word STATE or ARBITRARY)

Property however, is always somewhat arbitrary.

----------


## WaltM

> A better way to make money after identifying a bubble is to simply take the opposite side of the trade once the peak hits.


which is what i've been saying the whole time.

people ought to quit being whiners and just invest as they "know".





> All bubbles have an upward slope that approaches infinity.  Once that slope turns, it's time to short the market.  Understanding the fundamentals and being able to identify bubbles allows you to position yourself to make more money than bubble investors would.  Several Austrian minded economists/investors advised buying gold in 2002-2003.  If you simply look at the returns from 2002 to 2007, they were phenomenal.  You didn't even need to be in the bubble market to make the money.


yep.

lets see these people put money where they talk. (rather than excuses and blame, as kids in sociology class are trained to do)

----------


## hugolp

> I disagree
> 
> 
> 
> 
> property is whatever you can claim, enforce, have respected, recognized, with or without use of force, with or without the assistance of a state. 
> 
> A state merely acts on the behalf of the property owner and claimant, this goes the same for any type of property.
> 
> ...


You can find examples in history of self-ownership without government.

Ownership is not a government creation. Its actually something quite logical and simple, and that is the reason why it brings economic prosperity.

----------


## WaltM

> You can find examples in history of self-ownership without government.


and I can find examples of history where intellecutal property was respected without government.

which is what I said, government is irrelevant, they merely act according to their employer's demand.




> Ownership is not a government creation. Its actually something quite logical and simple, and that is the reason why it brings economic prosperity.


nor is intellectual property, it may be artificially propped up by the government's use of force, but it will continue to be enforced by force if the state didn't exist. 

just because something is on life supprot of the state, doesn't mean it was invented by the state for the state's sake.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> and I can find examples of history where intellecutal property was respected without government.
> 
> which is what I said, government is irrelevant, they merely act according to their employer's demand.
> 
> 
> 
> nor is intellectual property, it may be artificially propped up by the government's use of force, but it will continue to be enforced by force if the state didn't exist. 
> 
> just because something is on life supprot of the state, doesn't mean it was invented by the state for the state's sake.


I guess you forgot the part where IP is specifically protected in the US Constitution. Besides, you have just outed yourself as a Nihilist, which in essence makes it futile to continue addressing this issue with you.

----------


## low preference guy

> I guess you forgot the part where IP is specifically protected in the US Constitution. Besides, you have just outed yourself as a Nihilist, which in essence makes it futile to continue addressing this issue with you.


Agree! WaltM is a nihilist!

He also seems to get a thrill from coming up with new ways of exerting violence (against innocent, guilty, whoever). And he peddles it at RonPaulForums, of all places. What a freak!

----------


## WaltM

> I guess you forgot the part where IP is specifically protected in the US Constitution.


Yes, I forgot.

Does the fact the Constitution mentions something mean it's only a right if and after the Constitution existed?






> Besides, you have just outed yourself as a Nihilist, which in essence makes it futile to continue addressing this issue with you.


you call me a nihilist because I believe in more freedoms and property than you do. At least you can't call me a statist

----------


## WaltM

> Agree! WaltM is a nihilist!
> 
> He also seems to get a thrill from coming up with new ways of exerting violence (against innocent, guilty, whoever).


I'm certainly not a pacifist or enabler, so yes, I would happily use force if it's justifiable to me.




> And he peddles it at RonPaulForums, of all places. What a freak!


I don't think it's required that one denounces all violence on this forum.

BTW, I'm honored to be in the ranks with jmdrake & dannno

----------


## low preference guy

> BTW, I'm honored to be in the ranks with jmdrake & dannno


I guess you could be! You and dannno make a great show!

----------


## WaltM

> I guess you could be! You and dannno make a great show!


i thought he and I disagreed almost 100%, didn't know there would be somebody in between.

i used to have lots of disagreements with jmdrake, but now I understand my ignorance and have learned to have respectful convos.

----------


## robert68

> Originally Posted by robert68  
> It’s not rivalrous and arbitrarily defined by the state





> I disagree
> .


I erred in when I wrote “it’s not rivalrous” when I meant “it’s rivalrous”. And you can’t now say you “disagree” with that, without contradicting what you already wrote. 




> property is whatever you can claim, enforce, have respected, recognized, with or without use of force, with or without the assistance of a state. 
> 
> A state merely acts on the behalf of the property owner and claimant, this goes the same for any type of property.
> 
> One cannot claim he owns land or his bank account balance simply because he has a piece of paper that says so, as such, if another can disrespect, refuse to recognize and violate his so called "property" he would have no recourse or argument, therefore, he has failed to make it his property. (WOW, I managed to not use the word STATE or ARBITRARY)
> 
> Property however, is always somewhat arbitrary.


Not when one the ownership of rivalrous things cannot come with force, but through either being the first possessor of them or contract with those whose title can be traced back to the first possessor. I don’t see any libertarian principle or ethic in your concept of property.

----------


## WaltM

> I erred in when I wrote “it’s not rivalrous” when I meant “it’s rivalrous”. And you can’t now say you “disagree” with that, without contradicting what you already wrote.


I was disagreeing with the arbitrarily defined by state part, not the rivalrous part which i dont even know what it means




> Not when one the ownership of rivalrous things cannot come with force, but through either being the first possessor


I don't recognize the first possessor as the owner. Are you going to force me to respect his property?




> of them or contract with those whose title can be traced back to the first possessor. I don’t see any libertarian principle or ethic in your concept of property.


I don't claim to be a libertarian. 
What makes a first possessor ethical as an owner?

----------


## robert68

> ...
> 
> I don't recognize the first possessor as the owner. Are you going to force me to respect his property?


If by not respect, you mean violate the physical integrity of his property, without invitation, it will be you using force first, against the first possessor. 




> I don't claim to be a libertarian. 
> What makes a first possessor ethical as an owner?


You dont leave me the impression we both mean the same thing by ethics or ethical, so I dont know how to answer the question.

----------


## WaltM

> If by not respect, you mean violate the physical integrity of his property, without invitation, it will be you using force first, against the first possessor.


*Why am I forced to recognize his property just because he says so?

That's FORCE against ME & my will. 
*
This is especially more obvious for people who have no respect for intellectual property, they cannot say why physical property must be respected without using force.






> You dont leave me the impression we both mean the same thing by ethics or ethical, so I dont know how to answer the question.


My point is made, you don't have a consistent, defensible definition of property, you can't even say why mine is wrong.

----------


## robert68

> Originally Posted by robert68  
> If by “not respect”, you mean violate the physical integrity of his property, without invitation, it will be you using force first, against the first possessor.






> *Why am I forced to recognize his property just because he says so?
> 
> That's FORCE against ME & my will. 
> *
> This is especially more obvious for people who have no respect for intellectual property, they cannot say why physical property must be respected without using force.


I was trying to be reasonable with you. The first possessor didn’t use force to gain control of the possession.  If someone then comes along and uses force to for example, steal it from him, it’s obviously they who initiated the use of force.

----------


## WaltM

> I was trying to be reasonable with you. The first possessor didn’t use force to gain control of the possession.


That may be, but he's using force to maintain it, or else he'd just hand it to me if I said I believe it's mine.

If he doesn't respect my opinion, I am forced to use force to take it from him. If I disagree with him it's his property, he'll use force against me.




> If someone then comes along and uses force to for example, steal it from him, it’s obviously they who initiated the use of force.


nobody would use force against him if he just stopped claiming it to be his, so by claiming it is his property and excluding others, and forcing others to agree with him, respect it, recognize it against their will, *HE IS USING FORCE.*

*you have not answered my question, who is he to say it's his property just by claiming so? Why should anybody respect his property unless they agree?*

----------


## rp4prez

Not to put the thread back on topic or anything, but I found another great article that has a good reference list of studies!  Check it out!

http://www.sprott.com/Docs/Marketsat...20Stimulus.pdf

----------


## Seraphim

> Not to put the thread back on topic or anything, but I found another great article that has a good reference list of studies!  Check it out!
> 
> http://www.sprott.com/Docs/Marketsat...20Stimulus.pdf


I actually just sent this to my friend.

2 days ago I sent him a whole bunch and his attention perked up when some of them were Harvard/Berkeley peer revied journals. He sent me a short reply saying something like "cool man give me a few days, some of these are long- I will read them" . I sent him a bunch of stuff so I gotta be patient. Thanks RP4Prez, that was a good journal.

----------


## robert68

> Originally Posted by robert68  
> I was trying to be reasonable with you. The first possessor didn’t use force to gain control of the possession.





> That may be, but he's using force to maintain it, or else he'd just hand it to me if I said I believe it's mine.
> 
> If he doesn't respect my opinion, I am forced to use force to take it from him. If I disagree with him it's his property, he'll use force against me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> ...


Merely expressing an opinion others don’t like is not using force.  If you don’t threaten him with force first, he won’t need to use force to keep the property. 

Do you accuse those in a checkout line ahead of you of using force against you, if they don't let you cut in line? 




> [B]you have not answered my question, who is he to say it's his property just by claiming so? Why should anybody respect his property unless they agree?[/B


The point is that it’s a consistent (non-arbitrary) definition of property, not defined by might, giving privilege to some.

----------


## WaltM

> Merely expressing an opinion others don’t like is not using force.  If you don’t threaten him with force first, he won’t need to use force to keep the property.


I'm not using force when I ask him to give me what I want, the fact he insists he will not without justifying it to me when it's his possession and property, is using force against me.





> Do you accuse those in a checkout line ahead of you of using force against you, if they don't let you cut in line?


Yes, or else they'd let me cut in line.




> The point is that it’s a consistent (non-arbitrary) definition of property, not defined by might, giving privilege to some.


*

No it's not.

You've still not answered why the first possessor gets to own.*
If it's not defined by might, then what IS it defined by? 
What defines property other than agreement, recognition, respect, might, that can apply only to physical property and not intellectual property?
(or are you saying you believe in both)

----------


## robert68

> ...



I want to clarify something: property rights are by definition exclusionary.  And when those assigned those property rights are either first possessors, or those who contracted with someone who’s title can be traced back to the first possessor (as best is possible), the assigning of those property rights isn’t being decided arbitrarily or by force.

----------


## WaltM

> I want to clarify something: property rights are by definition exclusionary.


How is exclusion not force?




> And when those assigned those property rights are either first possessors, or those who contracted with someone whos title can be traced back to the first possessor (as best is possible)


I don't agree that first possessors are automatically and objectively owners. 

they are only owners because they either convinced others that they are, or forced people to agree that they are.




> , the assigning of those property rights isnt being decided arbitrarily or by force.


yes, it is.

and, does that include intellectual property?

----------


## robert68

> Originally Posted by robert68  
> Merely expressing an opinion others dont like is not using force. If you dont threaten him with force first, he wont need to use force to keep the property.
> 			
> 		
> 
> I'm not using force when I ask him to give me what I want, the fact he insists he will not without justifying it to me when it's his possession and property, is using force against me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not giving you what you want, is not using force.

----------


## rp4prez

> I actually just sent this to my friend.
> 
> 2 days ago I sent him a whole bunch and his attention perked up when some of them were Harvard/Berkeley peer revied journals. He sent me a short reply saying something like "cool man give me a few days, some of these are long- I will read them" . I sent him a bunch of stuff so I gotta be patient. Thanks RP4Prez, that was a good journal.


That's AWESOME!! Love to hear your friend might be some what reasonable.  Most liberals I send these things to tend to attack my sources etc (even when they are Harvard/Berkeley etc).  Mainly because they don't have anything to prove their point of view. 

Keep us updated as to what your friend's conclusions are.  I know I'm very interested!

----------


## wizardwatson

> I need reinforcements. My friend just called Austrian economists delusional (actually he stated DELUSIONOMICS). I want to compile sources and rational arguments of OTHERS to throw in his face. 
> 
> I need to rally some troups here ladies and gents, please help me?
> 
> A combination of personal experience, sourced links, real practical evidence...anything based on rational thought and logic. Please and thank you. The best replies will be sent to him to read. He thinks giving the Federal Reserve more power is a good idea and that debt issued currency does not result in perpetual and unpayable debt (on a macro scale). DELUSIONOMICS. LOL! $#@!in' idiot.
> 
> Help please


I assume your friend is using a pejorative version of "wrong" when he says "delusional".

And they must be wrong about a few things because they disagreed internally about many things, including their "cornerstone" beliefs about monetary theory and how to fix it.

But most of the stuff talked about around these forums isn't really in depth Austrian Economics, its mostly talk about the theories of money and credit within the field.

Mostly its all just deductive reasoning in the same vein as Adam Smith, Henry George and others.  You have to look at the specific conclusions they reach an analyze them independently if you want to make headway with your friend.  "Austrian Economics" is not some compendium of concrete laws and proofs.

----------


## Seraphim

> That's AWESOME!! Love to hear your friend might be some what reasonable.  Most liberals I send these things to tend to attack my sources etc (even when they are Harvard/Berkeley etc).  Mainly because they don't have anything to prove their point of view. 
> 
> Keep us updated as to what your friend's conclusions are.  I know I'm very interested!


Will do, he and I shoot emails back and fourth most days. I gave him a lot of economic reading- we both work a lot- I need to be patient.

----------


## MyLibertyStuff

Your friend is delusional.

----------


## Seraphim

> Your friend is delusional.


HAHAHAH. Yes I know. But instead of childishly telling him that, I just keep dolling out facts, data and historical perspectives that are well- timeless. AKA Jefferson, Mises etc..

----------


## WaltM

> Not giving you what you want, is not using force.


really? you can hold something against and from somebody without using force?

looks like you have a convenient way of saying "my use of force is OK".

----------


## Acala

> I assume your friend is using a pejorative version of "wrong" when he says "delusional".



No, he is being literal.  Bohm-Bawerk was convinced that his next-door neighbor was a giant radish from another planet.  Little-known fact.

----------


## robert68

> really? you can hold something against and from somebody without using force?
> 
> looks like you have a convenient way of saying "my use of force is OK".


If they intend to use force to take it, no.  What’s been at issue is how the “property” (ownership) *was acquired*.  Ownership was acquired upon obtaining possession, and being first possessor, no force was used to do so. Once ownership is acquired, the minimum amount of force necessary, can be used  to exercise ownership.

----------


## WaltM

> If they intend to use force to take it, no.


Why do you get to use force to keep it, and I can't just have it when I ask you nicely to give it to me?

I wouldn't use force if you just gave me what I wanted. Who gives you the right to claim your property?




> What’s been at issue is how the “property” (ownership) *was acquired*.


yeah, and you've not answered it, the best you've given was "because I saw it first"




> Ownership was acquired upon obtaining possession, and being first possessor, no force was used to do so.


So if I saw your house, or your car, I can take it and you're not forced to give it to me. 
(but somehow you've convinced yourself that it's OK if you have guns, or the government to force me to respect your property when I never agreed to it)




> Once ownership is acquired, the minimum amount of force necessary, can be used  to exercise ownership.


What constitutes "acquire"? Do I (the person who didn't claim the property) have to agree to it? If not, how is that just?

Can I person simply claim he owns something without other people respecting it?

----------


## robert68

> QUOTE]
> 
> 
> "because I saw it first"


You're not even being honest. And as memory serves me, every concept you don't like is circular to you. I'm finished.

----------


## WaltM

> You're not even being honest. And as memory serves me, every concept you don't like is circular to you. I'm finished.


you've yet to explain how it's not circular.

Please correct me, what is your definition of property that isn't "because I saw it first"? How is it different from "first possessor" and who gives the first possessor the right to claim property and use force to protect it against others?

It's not circular just because I don't like it, I like certain circular answers, but your answer is circular because it's circular, it and it doesn't happen to be one which I like. (and you've failed to show how it's consistent or objective)

----------


## osan

> I actually just sent this to my friend.
> 
> 2 days ago I sent him a whole bunch and his attention perked up when some of them were Harvard/Berkeley peer revied journals. He sent me a short reply saying something like "cool man give me a few days, some of these are long- I will read them" . I sent him a bunch of stuff so I gotta be patient. Thanks RP4Prez, that was a good journal.


Well, I guess this is good news and bad news all at once.  The good news is that your friend is open to other possibilities.  The bad news seems to be that credentials are more important to him than is reason.

----------


## Seraphim

> Well, I guess this is good news and bad news all at once.  The good news is that your friend is open to other possibilities.  The bad news seems to be that credentials are more important to him than is reason.


Agreed. Unfortunately most people think that way. However, finding journals and papers that support our libertarian economic model from "accredited" and known institutions certainly helps.

----------


## Up The Deise

I have a friend who said the same thing to me. When I responded back to him, he just looked at me and said: 'Ok, you win'. I find that people who make statements like austrian economics is dumb, they haven't thought it throw and have no real comeback.

----------


## Seraphim

> I have a friend who said the same thing to me. When I responded back to him, he just looked at me and said: 'Ok, you win'. I find that people who make statements like austrian economics is dumb, they haven't thought it throw and have no real comeback.


My friend is starting to come to that side: YOU WIN. 

His demeanor has changed. Perhaps I was going about it wrongly- but I can tell his defeat is imminent. He's a logical person- thus logic will win. I'm patient.

----------

