# Think Tank > Austrian Economics / Economic Theory >  An age of understanding in economics is coming

## couvi

Just as with other great scientific revelations in the vast history of human understanding, a consensus worldview of scientific economics, brought upon by the sophisticated accumulation and widespread dissemination of undeniable evidence, will alter popular perceptions of human existence. We need not forget that we live in a world of very imperfect understanding in economics. It is a result of the wide availability of differing opinions which gives most otherwise reasonable individuals the feeling that economics is unknowable.

There is, however, only one proper economic theory and it will win out as our knowledge is built and shared. It will win out because it is the only theory which consistently describes the real world. It sometimes takes centuries of evidence to convince the masses of scientific truth; but as societies continue to rise and fall in this age of free and vast information, as so much data is easily recorded, stored, and accessed, true economic law will be more fully and widely realized.

The treatment of economics by those who excuse unnatural and destructive market interventions is such that it is similar to treating physics with the imposition of an idol worshipping religious doctrine. Why does consensus intellectual opinion on physics and other natural sciences rely upon scientific understanding while economics remains muddled by the religion of economic interventionism? The state of civilization is constantly evolving, but the general trend is toward a more perfect knowledge of the natural laws which rule our existence. Many of the other sciences have been released from popular but demented interpretations--economics will have its turn to truth just the same.

Those laws which clearly govern the behavior of physical objects are more obviously present than the laws which govern the human social behavior studied by economists. There is a correct way to study economics; understanding is made possible by reducing complexity to its most basic component. The most basic component in economics is individual human action. Upon the realization of the importance of the individual and his singular actions, which are brought upon by his unique motivations, one will easily dismiss the irrational economic ideas which are slowly losing claim to the science.

As societies of people come to understand the natural economic law, the law which Austrian economists currently proliferate, the world will enter a new realm of unimaginable prosperity. It is my feeling that perhaps we are at just the beginning of the age of a popular understanding of rational economics. Perhaps it will take centuries before this understanding is adequately applied to civilization, but the arrival of such a world seems inevitable.

----------


## hazek

Wow you just brightened my day and I hope to god I know doesn't exists that you are right!

----------


## Travlyr

Humans have been interacting for thousands of years and the masses are just now coming to an understanding of economics. Thanks Internet! 

I think the ruling class has understood it all along. Hence, teach the children Keynesian bull$#@!, and ban those other guys. It was a nice little wealth making secret for them.

----------


## couvi

> Humans have been interacting for thousands of years and the masses are just now coming to an understanding of economics. Thanks Internet! 
> 
> I think the ruling class has understood it all along. Hence, teach the children Keynesian bull$#@!, and ban those other guys. It was a nice little wealth making secret for them.


"Thanks internet" really says it. The internet may very well be the most important invention as far as human prosperity goes. Communication builds knowledge.

----------


## ababba

How exactly can a theory which is incapable of making a quantitative prediction be taken seriously as a theory which predicts the future?

----------


## Xenophage

Unfortunately, this isn't a given.

The physical sciences didn't experience a revolution until the philosophic bedrock was already laid in place.  A philosophy of reason and objectivity, which was presented first by Aristotle and then reintroduced and refined more than 1500 years later, led to the Renaissance which enabled science to flourish.

The rediscovery of logic by Europe also led to tremendous political and social change, the epitome of which was the American Revolution.  Economic understanding has flourished as well, but at every step of the way we must be consciously wary of the various intellectual forces aligned against reason.  Without reason, no human progress is possible, in any field.

But it is not enough simply to assert the supremacy of logic, and then flounder in a search for an objective standard that's compatible with reality.  Economics is a highly abstracted field of human understanding, directly related to one's politics, and a proper understanding of economics has to be supported by a fully rational, fully integrated philosophy.  That means that your politics has to be rational as well - otherwise you haven't got much support for a rational economic theory.  A rational political theory needs to be rooted in a rational ethical theory, which relies in turn on your epistemology.

It's a long uphill battle to promote the philosophic change that is required to come to a rational understanding of economics.  The economic witch doctors of our time are powerful.

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

> There is, however, only one proper economic theory and it will win out as our knowledge is built and shared. It will win out because it is the only theory which consistently describes the real world.



There is plenty of neoclassical economic theory that consistently describes the real world.   Mathematics and data too, even.     But I agree that a more educated populace is certainly a good thing to keep politicians from their constant lies.  Austrian econ should be a tool in the toolbox, not a reason to throw all other tools away.

----------


## Travlyr

> How exactly can a theory which is incapable of making a quantitative prediction be taken seriously as a theory which predicts the future?


It's not really a theory. This is done through observation of human action, honesty in dealing with each other, and realizing reality.

----------


## ababba

I don't care what you call it. Whatever it is can't be used to make a quantitative prediction and yet somehow everyone is claiming it predicts the future. Its internally contradictory.

----------


## Travlyr

> I don't care what you call it. Whatever it is can't be used to make a quantitative prediction and yet somehow everyone is claiming it predicts the future. Its internally contradictory.


Anybody can predict the future. Very few can accurately predict the future. 

Have Keynesian quantitative predictions been right more often than they have been wrong? If so, please elaborate.

----------


## ababba

> Anybody can predict the future. Very few can accurately predict the future. 
> 
> Have Keynesian quantitative predictions been right more often than they have been wrong? If so, please elaborate.


At the beginning of the crisis, when the FED started printing money, extreme Keynesian economists wanted more stimulus saying we were in a liquidity trap. Other people were saying there would be an imminent hyperinflation. The Keynesians got that one right, almost three years later and price inflation is still below historical averages. 

One thing that mainstream economists are particularly good at is saying when we shouldn't be able to predict things. For example, in the price inflation forecasting literature, the best economists are saying that price inflation isn't really forecastable out of sample. Of course if you overfit a regression to some data, you will be able to predict inflation in that sample of data. But when you apply that same model to additional data, inflation is not forecastable. 

This same type of literature says that some things clearly predict real GDP growth. One of the primary ones is the slope of the yield curve, which works even out of sample. But all of these things aren't perfect. 

These types of models are particularly good at realizing that not everything that happens is predictable before it happens. There are a lot of things that couldn't be anticipated.

----------


## ababba

The point is that there is a group of economists that are doing the proper statistical tests to confirm whether the future is predictable by certain past information. You guys don't even have a quantitative prediction to test on data to begin with.

----------


## sratiug

> At the beginning of the crisis, when the FED started printing money, extreme Keynesian economists wanted more stimulus saying we were in a liquidity trap. Other people were saying there would be an imminent hyperinflation. The Keynesians got that one right, almost three years later and price inflation is still below historical averages. 
> 
> One thing that mainstream economists are particularly good at is saying when we shouldn't be able to predict things. For example, in the price inflation forecasting literature, the best economists are saying that price inflation isn't really forecastable out of sample. Of course if you overfit a regression to some data, you will be able to predict inflation in that sample of data. But when you apply that same model to additional data, inflation is not forecastable. 
> 
> This same type of literature says that some things clearly predict real GDP growth. One of the primary ones is the slope of the yield curve, which works even out of sample. But all of these things aren't perfect. 
> 
> These types of models are particularly good at realizing that not everything that happens is predictable before it happens. There are a lot of things that couldn't be anticipated.


The keynesians didn't get inflation right.  Why shouldn't prices be much lower now than before the crash?

----------


## ababba

> The keynesians didn't get inflation right.  Why shouldn't prices be much lower now than before the crash?


Two groups of people, one predicting imminent hyperinflation, one predicting continued low inflation. Continued low inflation resulted. Not a large sample, only a single observation, doesn't mean a ton but its an important example.

----------


## hazek

> At the beginning of the crisis, when the FED started printing money, extreme Keynesian economists wanted more stimulus saying we were in a liquidity trap. Other people were saying there would be an imminent hyperinflation. The Keynesians got that one right, almost three years later and price inflation is still below historical averages. 
> 
> One thing that mainstream economists are particularly good at is saying when we shouldn't be able to predict things. For example, in the price inflation forecasting literature, the best economists are saying that price inflation isn't really forecastable out of sample. Of course if you overfit a regression to some data, you will be able to predict inflation in that sample of data. But when you apply that same model to additional data, inflation is not forecastable. 
> 
> This same type of literature says that some things clearly predict real GDP growth. One of the primary ones is the slope of the yield curve, which works even out of sample. But all of these things aren't perfect. 
> 
> These types of models are particularly good at realizing that not everything that happens is predictable before it happens. There are a lot of things that couldn't be anticipated.


HAYEK 
I don’t want to do nothing, there’s plenty to do
The question I ponder is who plans for whom?
Do I plan for myself or leave it to you?
I want plans by the many, not by the few.

Let’s not repeat what created our troubles
I want real growth not a series of bubbles
Stop bailing out loser, let prices work
If we don’t try to steer them they won’t go berserk

KEYNES
Come on, Are you kidding? Don’t Wall Street’s gyrations
Challenge your world view of self-regulation?
Even you must admit that the lesson we’ve learned
Is more oversight’s needed or else we’ll get burned

HAYEK
Oversight? The government’s long been in bed
With those Wall Street execs and the firms that they’ve bled
Capitalism’s about profit and loss
you bail out the losers there’s no end to the cost

the lesson I’ve learned? *It’s how little we know,
the world is complex, not some circular flow
the economy’s not a class you can master in college
to think otherwise is the pretense of knowledge*

----------


## ababba

> *It’s how little we know,
> the world is complex, not some circular flow
> the economy’s not a class you can master in college
> to think otherwise is the pretense of knowledge*


Yes, thanks for agreeing with me that the Austrian theory can't predict the future. I don't quite get how you agreed with the original post given that you believe this.

----------


## Travlyr

> These types of models are particularly good at realizing that not everything that happens is predictable before it happens. There are a lot of things that couldn't be anticipated.


If you know that Keynesian theory cannot accurately predict the future, then why would you expect anything better from people who aren't even trying?

Human interaction using honest money does not need to predict the broader economy. Individuals and businesses may want to try and predict situations to get a leg up, but without a central planner there is no need for quantitative predictions to which you refer.

----------


## Diurdi

> The point is that there is a group of economists that are doing the proper statistical tests to confirm whether the future is predictable by certain past information. You guys don't even have a quantitative prediction to test on data to begin with.


 I think the greatest prosperity that the Austrian economics can provide us is the understanding that Government Intervention in the economy is harmful.

----------


## hazek

> Yes, thanks for agreeing with me that the Austrian theory can't predict the future. I don't quite get how you agreed with the original post given that you believe this.





> The point is that there is a group of economists that are doing the proper statistical tests to confirm whether the future is predictable by certain past information. You guys don't even have a quantitative prediction to test on data to begin with.


I'm confused.

First you acknowledge that it's impossible to accurately predict the future and then you claim there are people who are trying to learn how to? Well how can they learn the impossible?

----------


## anaconda

Apparently the understanding of Economics is evolving at an unprecedented pace right now.

----------


## hazek

> Apparently the understanding of Economics is evolving at an unprecedented pace right now.


An understanding that they don't understand what they thought they understood is also a very important one to understand.

----------


## ababba

> I'm confused.
> 
> First you acknowledge that it's impossible to accurately predict the future and then you claim there are people who are trying to learn how to? Well how can they learn the impossible?


Then you are confused about the OP, which exactly argued that Austrian economics can predict the future. 

I am saying Austrian economics does not make quantitative predictions about the future. This is often motivated by Hayek like arguments that you made. Its silly to then go and say that the theory predicts the future. (Think of this as a proof by contradiction, in order to do that you don't have to agree to the premises, you just have to show that they contradict each other). 

I'm not saying that predicting the future is impossible, I am saying it is testable, and most of the empirical tests show a lot less true predictability than people would have thought. Conventional economists find it very difficult to predict the future, when you use proper statistical techniques. However, there are a few cases where there is clear out of sample evidence of predictability in things like asset prices and GDP growth.

----------


## ababba

> I think the greatest prosperity that the Austrian economics can provide us is the understanding that Government Intervention in the economy is harmful.


And yet even if true, its a theory which will not quantify how harmful government intervention is.

----------


## Xenophage

> At the beginning of the crisis, when the FED started printing money, extreme Keynesian economists wanted more stimulus saying we were in a liquidity trap. Other people were saying there would be an imminent hyperinflation. The Keynesians got that one right, almost three years later and price inflation is still below historical averages. 
> 
> One thing that mainstream economists are particularly good at is saying when we shouldn't be able to predict things. For example, in the price inflation forecasting literature, the best economists are saying that price inflation isn't really forecastable out of sample. Of course if you overfit a regression to some data, you will be able to predict inflation in that sample of data. But when you apply that same model to additional data, inflation is not forecastable. 
> 
> This same type of literature says that some things clearly predict real GDP growth. One of the primary ones is the slope of the yield curve, which works even out of sample. But all of these things aren't perfect. 
> 
> These types of models are particularly good at realizing that not everything that happens is predictable before it happens. There are a lot of things that couldn't be anticipated.


You're seeking quantitative prediction where it's impossible.  The fact is, there are too many variables influencing the outcome, many of which can't be accurately measured.  So, even the best mathematical models will have a very high margin of error, and the effects of uncertainty are compounded in the short term.

Long term you can predict trends using Austrian theory with a very high degree of accuracy, but attempting to nail down precise values and timing becomes a guessing game.  The reason is simple and obvious:  Economics is NOT a physical science.  It's a study in human psychology.

Austrian theory holds up in light of real world historical data, and Austrians continue to make correct predictions of long term trends.  In fact, it's the only theory who's predictions consistently hold up historically.

----------


## Travlyr

> And yet even if true, its a theory which will not quantify how harmful government intervention is.


Here is how harmful government intervention is in an economy. Argentinians ended up calling the IMF the International Misery Fund. Watch the video and you'll see what happens to fiat money when government debts get too large.

http://www.blinkx.com/watch-video/ar...9LkRbR0zu4LJrg

----------


## ababba

> You're seeking quantitative prediction where it's impossible.  The fact is, there are too many variables influencing the outcome, many of which can't be accurately measured.  So, even the best mathematical models will have a very high margin of error, and the effects of uncertainty are compounded in the short term.
> 
> Long term you can predict trends using Austrian theory with a very high degree of accuracy, but attempting to nail down precise values and timing becomes a guessing game.  The reason is simple and obvious:  Economics is NOT a physical science.  It's a study in human psychology.
> 
> Austrian theory holds up in light of real world historical data, and Austrians continue to make correct predictions of long term trends.  In fact, it's the only theory who's predictions consistently hold up historically.


All right, what are the long-term quantitative predictions that the Austrians are making?

I can make millions of correct long-term predictions without magnitudes. Dumb things like real GDP will increase over the next 50 years. What is an interesting quantitative prediction with a magnitude attached that the Austrian's make?

----------


## hazek

> All right, what are the long-term quantitative predictions that the Austrians are making?


This:

----------


## ababba

> This:


So you guys believe something worse than the Great Depression will happen soon?

I'll take the other side of that bet.

----------


## hazek

> Then you are confused about the OP...


Xenophage has already addressed this post of yours in his #23 post in this thread so I wont repeat his words.

----------


## hazek

> I am saying it is testable, and most of the empirical tests show a lot less true predictability than people would have thought.


Hold on, I guess I do have to address this post of yours!

If there is "less true predictability" as you say, then please explain how Schiff in 2006 held the following presentation and nailed the housing bubble to a t?!:

----------


## ababba

> This:


He needs to get his facts right about the mortgage crisis, he doesn't understand even basic facts about what happened. 

The average teaser rate on a subprime loan was several percent higher than the average prime loan (because of lower credit quality). Therefore its impossible for people to choose ARM subprime over FRM prime as a way to make a mortgage more affordable. This really shows a lack of basic understanding of the data. 

The notion that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac originated loans that wouldn't get funded in the private sector because of the government guarantee is beyond idiotic. Fannie and Freddie only originated high credit quality loans with low loan to value, conforming size, low debt to income and high FICO scores. It was the subprime lenders which didn't have the government guarantee which made the loans to the worst credit risks.

----------


## hazek

> So you guys believe something worse than the Great Depression will happen soon?
> 
> I'll take the other side of that bet.


Good luck with that. I have 85% of my money in gold so I already made my bet back in 2009.

----------


## ababba

> Hold on, I guess I do have to address this post of yours!
> 
> If there is "less true predictability" as you say, then please explain how Schiff in 2006 held the following presentation and nailed the housing bubble to a t?!:


Bob Shiller predicted it too by simply running a regression of housing returns on price/rent ratios. 

Peter Schiff also predicted a huge hyperinflation. He got one right and one wrong. Not a terrible record here, just like coin flipping. 

Peter Schiff clearly shows in the other video just posted that he doesn't have a basic understanding of the data about the housing market.

----------


## hazek

Oh you think he missed one because you believe somehow this whole mass is over already? Well it's not. These things take time to unravel especially if you have the government actively trying it's best to keep them from unraveling. Also if you cared to watch the recent video in it's full length you'd know he presented two options of what's going to happen in response of what the government will do which obviously he cannot predict and can only speculate about.

EDIT: anyway I'm done trying to defend common sense, if you're to blind to see through the Keynesian bs, you're just going to have to learn it the hard way.

----------


## ababba

> Oh you think he missed one because you believe somehow this whole mass is over already? Well it's not. These things take time to unravel especially if you have the government actively trying it's best to keep them from unraveling. Also if you cared to watch the recent video in it's full length you'd know he presented two options of what's going to happen in response of what the government will do which obviously he cannot predict and can only speculate about.
> 
> EDIT: anyway I'm done trying to defend common sense, if you're to blind to see through the Keynesian bs, you're just going to have to learn it the hard way.


You aren't defending common sense. 

You are defending Hayekian uncertainty and Peter Schiff's predictions of the future at the same time. Those are mutually contradictory. 

I'm happy to say that there is some validity to the Hayek point, but you can't then go and say that Schiff knows the future, because then Hayak isn't right.

----------


## Teaser Rate

> He needs to get his facts right about the mortgage crisis, he doesn't understand even basic facts about what happened. 
> 
> The average *teaser rate* on a subprime loan was several percent higher than the average prime loan (because of lower credit quality). Therefore its impossible for people to choose ARM subprime over FRM prime as a way to make a mortgage more affordable. This really shows a lack of basic understanding of the data. 
> 
> The notion that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac originated loans that wouldn't get funded in the private sector because of the government guarantee is beyond idiotic. Fannie and Freddie only originated high credit quality loans with low loan to value, conforming size, low debt to income and high FICO scores. It was the subprime lenders which didn't have the government guarantee which made the loans to the worst credit risks.


+rep for mentioning my name. (and for being absolutely right about everything mentioned in this thread)

----------


## Travlyr

> You aren't defending common sense.


Yes he is.




> +rep for mentioning my name. (and for being absolutely right about everything mentioned in this thread)


Both of you guys are really smart. Ron Paul wrote "End The Fed" Yet, both of you defend  central banking and Keynesian economics.
Why?

----------


## Danke

haha.  My dad invested with Schiff and company, even before the slight down turn in Schiff's portfolios, and has done quite well.

----------


## ababba

> Yes he is.
> 
> 
> 
> Both of you guys are really smart. Ron Paul wrote "End The Fed" Yet, both of you defend  central banking and Keynesian economics.
> Why?


There is a huge difference between wanting to end the Fed and thinking that the Fed is a catastrophic failure that will bring about certain doom. 

My personal opinions are that monetary policy since 1980 has had a slightly beneficial effect on the economy, although I can't be certain about that. Before Volcker, monetary policy had a negative influence on the economy. 

I think there are two tenets of modern Keynesian economics, the first is that prices are not perfectly flexible. I agree with this and I think it has important real effects. I think most people in the forum would also agree that prices aren't perfectly flexible. The second tenet of modern keynesian economics is that at the zero lower bound for nominal interest rates, traditional monetary policy is not effective and fiscal policy is more effective. I tend to disagree with this point, although I understand what needs to be true for this argument to hold. So I'm not necessarily supporting Keynesian economics in its entirety. 

I defend the things that I think are right, to an audience of extremely smart people that I think are right about a lot of issues, but are wrong about monetary theory.

----------


## torchbearer

> There is a huge difference between wanting to end the Fed and thinking that the Fed is a catastrophic failure that will bring about certain doom. 
> 
> My personal opinions are that monetary policy since 1980 has had a slightly beneficial effect on the economy, although I can't be certain about that. Before Volcker, monetary policy had a negative influence on the economy. 
> 
> I think there are two tenets of modern Keynesian economics, the first is that prices are not perfectly flexible. I agree with this and I think it has important real effects. I think most people in the forum would also agree that prices aren't perfectly flexible. The second tenet of modern keynesian economics is that at the zero lower bound for nominal interest rates, traditional monetary policy is not effective and fiscal policy is more effective. I tend to disagree with this point, although I understand what needs to be true for this argument to hold. So I'm not necessarily supporting Keynesian economics in its entirety. 
> 
> I defend the things that I think are right, to an audience of extremely smart people that I think are right about a lot of issues, but are wrong about monetary theory.


the arms were marketed to people who could not put down a traditional down payment nor had the ability to get a traditional loan. that is why they failed.
mortgage brokers were lying on apps just to make their commision. easy money led to easy bust.
i don't see how you defend central economic planning.

----------


## Travlyr

> There is a huge difference between wanting to end the Fed and thinking that the Fed is a catastrophic failure that will bring about certain doom. 
> 
> My personal opinions are that monetary policy since 1980 has had a slightly beneficial effect on the economy, although I can't be certain about that. Before Volcker, monetary policy had a negative influence on the economy. 
> 
> I think there are two tenets of modern Keynesian economics, the first is that prices are not perfectly flexible. I agree with this and I think it has important real effects. I think most people in the forum would also agree that prices aren't perfectly flexible. The second tenet of modern keynesian economics is that at the zero lower bound for nominal interest rates, traditional monetary policy is not effective and fiscal policy is more effective. I tend to disagree with this point, although I understand what needs to be true for this argument to hold. So I'm not necessarily supporting Keynesian economics in its entirety. 
> 
> I defend the things that I think are right, to an audience of extremely smart people that I think are right about a lot of issues, but are wrong about monetary theory.


You are analyzing government economics of central banks creating money out of nothing which is unconstitutional and immoral because it benefits the elite more than the mundanes. Whoever is closest to the printing press, wins.

We are defending freedom. We want to live in a liberated world of honest money where we don't get beat up for dancing which is constitutional, moral, and equitable for all based on their ability.

----------


## hazek

> I defend the things that I think are right, to an audience of extremely smart people that I think are right about a lot of issues, but are wrong about monetary theory.


Ah yes the old "you are a bunch of very smart, intelligent people, who are right on a lot of things, but just don't understand that it's best for you if we have these few unelected MEN centrally plan the most important item of the whole planet - MONEY - in secret behind close doors" routine.

Please cut this BS and take it someplace else.

----------


## ababba

What is central planning?

To me it is saying we need more of good X and less of good Y produced. I'm against this. "It is an economic system in which the central government controls industry such that it makes major decisions regarding the production and distribution of goods and services"

Changing the money supply is not central planning, just like choosing a gold standard would not be central planning.

----------


## Travlyr

> What is central planning?
> 
> To me it is saying we need more of good X and less of good Y produced. I'm against this. "It is an economic system in which the central government controls industry such that it makes major decisions regarding the production and distribution of goods and services"
> 
> Changing the money supply is not central planning, just like choosing a gold standard would not be central planning.


Go away.

----------


## hazek

Really?! Money is one half of every transaction. So how is centrally planing the monetary policy not centrally planing the whole market?

Why is it so tough for some people to connect these dots?

----------


## low preference guy

> What is central planning?
> 
> To me it is saying we need more of good X and less of good Y produced. I'm against this. "It is an economic system in which the central government controls industry such that it makes major decisions regarding the production and distribution of goods and services"
> 
> Changing the money supply is not central planning, just like choosing a gold standard would not be central planning.


Yeah. Having politicians choose the amount of dollars that the economy should have is not central planning. LOL!

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Changing the money supply is not central planning, just like choosing a gold standard would not be central planning.


It would be if the "money supply" is coercively enforced and/or protected from competition by a government.

----------


## ababba

> Go away.


Yes welcome to the golden age of economic thought everyone.

----------


## Travlyr

> Yes welcome to the golden age of economic thought everyone.


Ours is liberty, peace, and prosperity through honesty.

You are happy enslaving people. Pretty $#@!ty economic school of thought.

----------


## hazek

Pretty much what ^ he said.

----------


## ababba

> Ours is liberty, peace, and prosperity through honesty.
> 
> You are happy enslaving people. Pretty $#@!ty economic school of thought.


I'm a utilitarian consequentalist. If you can convince me that your economic system leads to better outcomes, I would be happy to agree with you. 

If you can't do that, it means you are defending an economic system that makes people worse off in order to maintain some other moral principle.

----------


## hazek

Well we'd try it if your worshiped central planers wouldn't stop us with guns.

----------


## low preference guy

> I'm a utilitarian consequentalist. If you can convince me that your economic system leads to better outcomes, I would be happy to agree with you.


Right. Zimbabwe, The Weimar Republic and Argentina in 2001 definitely had awesome outcomes.

Also, when somebody is putting a gun to my head to threaten me to not use gold to exchange goods, that's already a bad outcome. It's interesting that you consider violence and oppression against innocents to be a good outcome.

----------


## Travlyr

> I'm a utilitarian consequentalist. If you can convince me that your economic system leads to better outcomes, I would be happy to agree with you. 
> 
> If you can't do that, it means you are defending an economic system that makes people worse off in order to maintain some other moral principle.


What did you guys do to the native Americans?
How many years have you been "helping the poor"?
How many years until slavery is truly ended?

----------


## ababba

> Yeah. Having politicians choose the amount of dollars that the economy should have is not central planning. LOL!


Its not a system where the government is making decisions about the price or quantity of goods and services, which was the definition I quoted above. 

Of course, it involves government action which affects the economy. However, it leaves the price system intact, all transactions that take place are at prices set by the two individuals involved in the transaction. 

Would you at least agree its very different than when the government decides how much of different goods should be produced like cars or tvs?

----------


## hazek

> Right. Zimbabwe, The Weimar Republic and Argentina in 2001 definitely had awesome outcomes.


Here let me predict his delusional defense:
Ah yes those are regrettable examples but your school would cause much more and worse harm than that.

----------


## ababba

> Right. Zimbabwe, The Weimar Republic and Argentina in 2001 definitely had awesome outcomes.
> 
> Also, when somebody is putting a gun to my head if I want to use gold to exchange goods, that's already a bad outcome. It's interesting that you consider violence and oppression against innocent to be a good outcome.


The United States in the Greenspan and Bernanke monetary regimes has had extremely low output and inflation volatility and a low average level of inflation compared to other countries and other historical periods.

----------


## low preference guy

> Would you at least agree its very different than when the government decides how much of different goods should be produced like cars or tvs?


It's much worse. It affects the price of money, which is a bigger part of the economy than just the price of shoes.

It has worse consequences. It creates bubbles. It created the dot com bubble and the housing bubble.

----------


## ababba

> What did you guys do to the native Americans?
> How many years have you been "helping the poor"?
> How many years until slavery is truly ended?


I have no idea what you are talking about. I didn't do anything to the native americans or have anything to do with slavery, given I was born in the 1980's.

----------


## torchbearer

> Its not a system where the government is making decisions about the price or quantity of goods and services, which was the definition I quoted above. 
> 
> Of course, it involves government action which affects the economy. However, it leaves the price system intact, all transactions that take place are at prices set by the two individuals involved in the transaction. 
> 
> Would you at least agree its very different than when the government decides how much of different goods should be produced like cars or tvs?


money is a representation of access to resources, creating more money and handing it out to your buddies doesn't change the amount of resources, it just drives up the number of dollars it takes to acquire a resource... making it harder for average people to acquire them and giving the banking buds prime access to those limited resources.
that is central planning. government picks winners and losers and shift resources via money creation and handing out to politically connected.

----------


## ababba

> It's much worse. It affects the price of money, which is a bigger part of the economy than just the price of shoes.
> 
> It has worse consequences. It creates bubbles. It created the dot com bubble and the housing bubble.


We've had this debate in other threads. I disagree that the two bubbles were the result of monetary policy. I think the dotcom bubble was about people having too high of expectations for future earnings of internet companies. There were some other issues involved like restrictions on sales by insiders and short sales constraints. A repeal of those regulations would have reduced the impact of the bubble. The housing bubble happened because everyone, buyers and creditors had too high expectations for future housing price appreciation.

----------


## Kregisen

I think some of you guys are being $#@!s to ababba. He seems like a pretty knowledgable person on the subject, so if he's wrong, debate him, don't try making fun of him and telling him to leave an online forum. If this forum only had "omg kill the government anarchy yay yay yay" people I would've never joined. The whole point is to talk about different stances on issues. 

As an econ minor this is a very interesting issue and I don't know enough to say that either theory is better for the economy as a whole. I think Keynesian theory is immoral just because the government is spending the citizen's money for them, but I don't know if it's necessarily worse for the economy as a whole than Austrian economics - economists all disagree - there is no one supreme answer, and there may never be.

----------


## low preference guy

> We've had this debate in other threads. I disagree that the two bubbles were the result of monetary policy. I think the dotcom bubble was about people having too high of expectations for future earnings of internet companies. There were some other issues involved like restrictions on sales by insiders and short sales constraints. A repeal of those regulations would have reduced the impact of the bubble. The housing bubble happened because everyone, buyers and creditors had too high expectations for future housing price appreciation.


Can't. stop. laughing.

----------


## ababba

> money is a representation of access to resources, creating more money and handing it out to your buddies doesn't change the amount of resources, it just drives up the number of dollars it takes to acquire a resource... making it harder for average people to acquire them and giving the banking buds prime access to those limited resources.
> that is central planning. government picks winners and losers and shift resources via money creation and handing out to politically connected.


If thats what monetary policy did, I would agree with you. On the other hand, I don't think exchanging money for bonds has large effects on the distribution of wealth. I did a calculation in one thread where I argued that banks earn about 30 thousand dollars on a one billion dollar treasury trade with the government. Its hardly a gain to build an economic system around.

----------


## low preference guy

> I think some of you guys are being $#@!s to ababba. He seems like a pretty knowledgable person on the subject, so if he's wrong, debate him, don't try making fun of him and telling him to leave an online forum. If this forum only had "omg kill the government anarchy yay yay yay" people I would've never joined. The whole point is to talk about different stances on issues. 
> 
> As an econ minor this is a very interesting issue and I don't know enough to say that either theory is better for the economy as a whole. I think Keynesian theory is immoral just because the government is spending the citizen's money for them, but I don't know if it's necessarily worse for the economy as a whole than Austrian economics - economists all disagree - there is no one supreme answer, and there may never be.


No, he is a violent person. He supports a system which can only survive if threats against innocents are made. I can't freely choose to transact in gold and silver because there is a violent threat that if I do, my wealth will be confiscated or I will go to jail. That threat is backed up by hundreds of guns the government owns, and abba supports those threats against me. He is a criminal.

----------


## Travlyr

> I have no idea what you are talking about. I didn't do anything to the native americans or have anything to do with slavery, given I was born in the 1980's.





> Both of you guys are really smart. Ron Paul wrote "End The Fed" Yet, both of you defend  central banking and Keynesian economics.
> Why?


Let me rephrase this. One of you guys are really smart, and he is keeping his mouth shut.

----------


## torchbearer

I want plans by the many, not be the few.

----------


## Travlyr

> I think some of you guys are being $#@!s to ababba. He seems like a pretty knowledgable person on the subject, so if he's wrong, debate him, don't try making fun of him and telling him to leave an online forum. If this forum only had "omg kill the government anarchy yay yay yay" people I would've never joined. The whole point is to talk about different stances on issues. 
> 
> As an econ minor this is a very interesting issue and I don't know enough to say that either theory is better for the economy as a whole. I think Keynesian theory is immoral just because the government is spending the citizen's money for them, but I don't know if it's necessarily worse for the economy as a whole than Austrian economics - economists all disagree - there is no one supreme answer, and there may never be.


It's the violence. Take it somewhere else.

----------


## Kregisen

> No, he is a violent person. He supports a system which can only survive if threats against innocents are made. I can't freely choose to transact in gold and silver because there is a violent threat that if I do, my wealth will be confiscated or I will go to jail. That threat is backed up by hundreds of guns the government owns, and abba supports those threats against me.


That logic is why so many newbies on here get scared away and never vote for Ron...because if they aren't libertarian on something, people like you go ape$#@! and start yelling at them because they support "the government that is threatening violence on me". You'll never win over anyone engaging people like that.

----------


## hazek

> I think some of you guys are being $#@!s to ababba. He seems like a pretty knowledgable person on the subject, so if he's wrong, debate him, don't try making fun of him and telling him to leave an online forum. If this forum only had "omg kill the government anarchy yay yay yay" people I would've never joined. The whole point is to talk about different stances on issues. 
> 
> As an econ minor this is a very interesting issue and I don't know enough to say that either theory is better for the economy as a whole. I think Keynesian theory is immoral just because the government is spending the citizen's money for them, but I don't know if it's necessarily worse for the economy as a whole than Austrian economics - economists all disagree - there is no one supreme answer, and there may never be.


Good post, but one small problem. ababba is not interested in a debate, he is not making any arguments. All he does is make statements based on his beliefs with zero facts backing it up. All we are doing is presenting countless of arguments backed up with facts and he keeps ignoring them. Sorry but I really don't see the point of giving a person like that any attention and wouldn't mind at all if he just left.

----------


## torchbearer

> If thats what monetary policy did, I would agree with you. On the other hand, I don't think exchanging money for bonds has large effects on the distribution of wealth. I did a calculation in one thread where I argued that banks earn about 30 thousand dollars on a one billion dollar treasury trade with the government. Its hardly a gain to build an economic system around.


how much does it cost me to buy money, and how much does it cost jp morgan to buy money?

----------


## low preference guy

> That logic is why so many newbies on here get scared away and never vote for Ron...because if they aren't libertarian on something, people like you go ape$#@! and start yelling at them because they support "the government that is threatening violence on me". You'll never win over anyone engaging people like that.


What "logic"? Supporting violent threats against innocents is wrong and is a plain description of what he does. There's no weird "logic" behind that statement.

----------


## Travlyr

Central banking promotes violence. If you are for that, then why post on a liberty forum?
Liberty, Peace, & Prosperity

Peace is our middle name.

----------


## RonPaulGetsIt

> How exactly can a theory which is incapable of making a quantitative prediction be taken seriously as a theory which predicts the future?


You know a bubble will pop and malinvestments will be shown for what they are.  it is literally like knowing a bubble will pop but you don't know when.

If I build a large brick building having on hand only 90% of the necessary bricks, there is no theory that can say when precisely I will discover my error.  The Austrian theory lets you know there is an error but the timing is impossible.  The keynesian fools go on merrily building the house until they have used their very last brick only then discovering their error.

----------


## Seraphim

I agree with the thread title.

----------


## ababba

> how much does it cost me to buy money, and how much does it cost jp morgan to buy money?


They are both pretty close to a dollar for a dollar, JPM sometimes gets a dollar for 0.99997 dollars.

----------


## ababba

> You know a bubble will pop and malinvestments will be shown for what they are.  it is literally like knowing a bubble will pop but you don't know when.
> 
> If I build a large brick building having on hand only 90% of the necessary bricks, there is no theory that can say when precisely I will discover my error.  The Austrian theory lets you know there is an error but the timing is impossible.  The keynesian fools go on merrily building the house until they have used their very last brick only then discovering their error.


I guess the key is then whether the Austrian theory tells us anything about how big the error is?

----------


## torchbearer

> They are both pretty close to a dollar for a dollar, JPM sometimes gets a dollar for 0.99997 dollars.


it will cost me about me about 7-10% to buy money(sometimes way more), jpmorgan gets it for close to zero at the feds window.

----------


## ababba

> it will cost me about me about 7-10% to buy money(sometimes way more), jpmorgan gets it for close to zero at the feds window.


You can get a dollar in exchange for a dollar if you pay immediately. You are talking about getting a dollar now in exchange for the possibility of you paying it back in the future. There is a lot of risk involved in loaning to you. Short term rates to high quality companies are very close to the zero at the feds window.

----------


## torchbearer

> You can get a dollar in exchange for a dollar if you pay immediately. You are talking about getting a dollar now in exchange for the possibility of you paying it back in the future. There is a lot of risk involved in loaning to you. Short term rates to high quality companies are very close to the zero at the feds window.


are you talking about high quality companies that required being bailed out?
i have a better credit rating.

----------


## ababba

> are you talking about high quality companies that required being bailed out?
> i have a better credit rating.


It also matters what the maturity of the debt is. Obviously a short term overnight loan should have a different interest rate than your 30 year mortgage. Any individual has a much greater chance of default than major fortune 500 companies. Some of these companies do default, but that doesn't mean that they have a greater chance of defaulting than a consumer with your characteristics. Vanguard Prime Money Market is a short term fund that buys commercial paper of these companies. Its currently yielding .07%.

----------


## torchbearer

Tom Woods explains the business cycle to ababba

----------


## torchbearer

> It also matters what the maturity of the debt is. Obviously a short term overnight loan should have a different interest rate than your 30 year mortgage. Any individual has a much greater chance of default than major fortune 500 companies. Some of these companies do default, but that doesn't mean that they have a greater chance of defaulting than a consumer with your characteristics. Vanguard Prime Money Market is a short term fund that buys commercial paper of these companies. Its currently yielding .07%.


citigroups has a worse credit record than i do, do they have preference because of their history of being bailed out?
i lose because there is no government garuntee on my losses?
central planning.

----------


## ababba

> citigroups has a worse credit record than i do, do they have preference because of their history of being bailed out?
> i lose because there is no government garuntee on my losses?
> central planning.


I don't support the bailout.

----------


## torchbearer

> I don't support the bailout.


well, isn't that special.
but your support or lack of support of the bailouts doesn't change the moral hazard introduced into our economic system by the fake money system of the federal reserve, nor does it change the consequential lending practices that stem from such policies.
this is how an economy of federal reserve intervention rewards loser and punish winners.
i'm assuming you skipped the tom woods video i posted too.

when you get smacked with the truth, put head into sand.

----------


## ababba

> well, isn't that special.
> but your support or lack of support of the bailouts doesn't change the moral hazard introduced into our economic system by the fake money system of the federal reserve, nor does it change the consequential lending practices that stem from such policies.
> this is how an economy of federal reserve intervention rewards loser and punish winners.
> i'm assuming you skipped the tom woods video i posted too.
> 
> when you get smacked with the truth, put head into sand.


Moral hazard from fiat currency? Why don't you explain that.

----------


## torchbearer

> Moral hazard from fiat currency? Why don't you explain that.


hell, i don't know where to start with that one-
let's start with congressional spending.
in a gold based system, if congress borrows the majority of savings available- interest rates would rise and as the rate gets higher, market forces would disuade more borrowing by the congress. in a fiat system, more money is created artificially removing the savings/borrowing limit that would set on congress.
then the next one-
if my company knows it will get bailed out because it is "too big to fail" and its senior members sit on the governing board of the fed, i will make investment bets that i may not make otherwise if i was to suffer the loss.
if you go to the casino knowing that if you lose- the loss will be paid by someone else. you will behave differently in your betting.
do i need to use stick figures for the above as a form of illustration? i tried to keep the words simple.

do you need more explanation of moral hazard?

----------


## ababba

> hell, i don't know where to start with that one-
> let's start with congressional spending.
> in a gold based system, if congress borrows the majority of savings available- interest rates would rise and as the rate gets higher, market forces would disuade more borrowing by the congress. in a fiat system, more money is created artificially removing the savings/borrowing limit that would set on congress.
> then the next one-
> if my company knows it will get bailed out because it is "too big to fail" and its senior members sit on the governing board of the fed, i will make investment bets that i may not make otherwise if i was to suffer the loss.
> if you go to the casino knowing that if you lose- the loss will be paid by someone else. you will behave differently in your betting.
> do i need to use stick figures for the above as a form of illustration? i tried to keep the words simple.
> 
> do you need more explanation of moral hazard?


The first one isn't moral hazard at all. There is no risk involved that satisfies the definition of moral hazard. 

In addition, the Fed does not have to monetize the debt, ever if it chooses not to. You can have monetary policy without debt monetization and we can talk about the likelihood of monetization, but it isn't required. 

The Fed isn't responsible for the bailouts of banks in the TARP program, so I'm not quite sure where your going with the second point. They were involved in loaning money to AIG but this was a collateralized loan and not an equity investment as in the case of TARP. 

And this misses the point that we can argue about whether the nontraditional monetary policies of the Fed during the financial crisis were a good idea or not, but this isn't an argument against traditional monetary policy, that doesn't involve more extreme lender of last resort type events.

----------


## torchbearer

> The first one isn't moral hazard at all. There is no risk involved. 
> 
> In addition, the Fed does not have to monetize the debt, ever if it chooses not to. You can have monetary policy without debt monetization and we can talk about the likelihood of monetization, but it isn't required. 
> 
> The Fed isn't responsible for the bailouts of banks in the TARP program, so I'm not quite sure where your going with the second point. They were involved in loaning money to AIG but this was a collateralized loan and not an equity investment as in the case of TARP. 
> 
> And this misses the point that we can argue about whether the nontraditional monetary policies of the Fed during the financial crisis were a good idea or not, but this isn't an argument against traditional monetary policy, that doesn't involve more extreme lender of last resort type events.


 
you asked how fiat currency creates moral hazard. i showed you how.
are you $#@!ing stupid or you purposely avoiding the topic you invited because you got stuck in the ass with truth dicks?

----------


## Travlyr

> do you need more explanation of moral hazard?


You left out the part where if things don't work out as planned and it costs more money than they anticipated, then they take more money from people who had nothing to do with it. 

And if the innocent people who had nothing to do with it whatsoever don't pay the ransom, then they take your property and maybe even your freedom if you really resist.

Enslavement at the point of thugs and guns.

----------


## torchbearer

let me try this one other way before i go ape-$#@! flame on your ass.
the federal reserve under a gold standard would only be able to bailout people to the extent that there is gold in the system. even though immoral, they would be limited by a resource.
with paper money, the could bail out everyone and their momma. there is no limit to their destruction, no limit to the bet they can cover for a member bank.
the moral hazard becomes infinite with fake money.

----------


## StilesBC

Other than a few isolated posts, the Austrian viewpoint has been poorly defended in this thread.  ababba needs to be cut some slack.  But (s)he is wrong, nonetheless.  

He is ignoring the fundamental mechanics of change, as neoclassicals are so good at.  Too much aggregation in other words.  He is using some subjective definition of "the common good," most likely GDP.  No, I cannot offer a better definition.  I don't believe it is possible because value is subjective to the individual and therefore cannot be quantified to determine "average" value.  So if we have no viable definition for what we are trying to achieve by monetary or fiscal planning, then how can we reasonably expect to achieve it?  We can achieve a favourable outcome for one "cluster" of the population who have similar ordinal value scales, but only at the expense of another group.  Moreover, some will be made better off in some respects and worse off in others.  The effects are a complete cluster$#@!: also unmeasurable for any useful purpose.  

Ok, so maybe it is just my subjective opinion on GDP accounting.  Maybe others think it does accurately reflect their well-being.  No, doesn't matter.  Sometimes, what is best for the majority isn't the "proper" course of action for the long-term "wealth of nations."  For example, back in the horse and buggy days, the declining availability in buggy parts inconvenienced the many at the expense of the few, which were now benefiting from the transferred investment from buggy parts to auto parts, which would, within 10 years, make substituting the auto for the buggy economical.  The "punitive" higher interest rates for a buggy part maker didn't allow them to refinance their loans, so the transfer of investment moneys was accelerated by the bankruptcy.  Instead, had there been a central bank back then, interest rates would have been lowered, the investment would have been maintained in the buggy sector and the adoption of the auto would have been slower as a result.  Perhaps America would have lost its chance to be the world's dominant automaker.  The creative destruction of the buggy part industry would first have a negative effect on GDP, unemployment would rise, etc.  But the saving that was taking place at its expense would yield a higher GDP in the future if it were allowed.  These are the types of problems occurring right now, although we can't see them.  We don't know what financial innovations would have replaced our credit based monetary system.  Perhaps we'd already be reaping its benefits.  

How is this relevant to the primary argument in the thread, predictability of the future?  Well, we cannot predict what people will want and we cannot predict how a certain intervention will effect the entire economy.  We can't even define "the economy."  What we _can_ say is that allowing individuals to make the maximum amount of decisions on their own behalf will result in a better outcome for their own well-being than any alternative.  This does not mean humans are perfectly rational.  They make mistakes.  Lots of them.  Sometimes huge mistakes.  But on balance, more people make more rational decisions for themselves than can be made for them - for one simple reason: better information (about their own ordinal value scale, and how to achieve it).  To suggest otherwise is extremely arrogant; suggesting that you know what somebody else wants better than they do.

----------


## ababba

> you asked how fiat currency creates moral hazard. i showed you how.
> are you $#@!ing stupid or you purposely avoiding the topic you invited because you got stuck in the ass with truth dicks?


You gave two examples, one which may be a problem but has nothing to do with moral hazard. The second one is moral hazard, but its more about why TARP is bad than why the Fed is bad.

----------


## ababba

> let me try this one other way before i go ape-$#@! flame on your ass.
> the federal reserve under a gold standard would only be able to bailout people to the extent that there is gold in the system. even though immoral, they would be limited by a resource.
> with paper money, the could bail out everyone and their momma. there is no limit to their destruction, no limit to the bet they can cover for a member bank.
> the moral hazard becomes infinite with fake money.


But even under the current system, the Fed isn't bailing companies out. It is making collateralized loans and not equity investments. In the case of Lehman, they couldn't make one of these loans because the collateral wasn't valuable enough.

----------


## torchbearer

> You gave two examples, one which may be a problem but has nothing to do with moral hazard. The second one is moral hazard, but its more about why TARP is bad than why the Fed is bad.


you didn't ask why the fed was bad, you asked how fiat currency creates moral hazard.
being able to borrow without consequence creates moral hazard. both examples are examples of how fake money creates moral hazard.
i don't know what your deficiancy is... but i'm sure it is what has led you to your erroneous conclusions.

----------


## torchbearer

> But even under the current system, the Fed isn't bailing companies out. It is making collateralized loans and not equity investments. In the case of Lehman, they couldn't make one of these loans because the collateral wasn't valuable enough.



read post 95, if you still don't understand... well- flame on.

----------


## torchbearer



----------


## low preference guy

> In addition, the Fed does not have to monetize the debt, ever if it chooses not to. You can have monetary policy without debt monetization and we can talk about the likelihood of monetization, but it isn't required.


If there is a dictator, he doesn't have to restrict free speech either. If there is no first amendment, the government doesn't have to violate your right to free speech. Let's get rid of it.

----------


## StilesBC

Actually, I'll take back my comment about cutting ababba slack.  He's being intentionally dishonest on numerous counts.  "AIG loan was collateralized, therefore it wasn't a bailout."  Give me a break.  As if losses on these sweetheart low-interest loans aren't eventually paid by the taxpayers through monetization.

----------


## ababba

> Other than a few isolated posts, the Austrian viewpoint has been poorly defended in this thread.  ababba needs to be cut some slack.  But (s)he is wrong, nonetheless.  
> 
> He is ignoring the fundamental mechanics of change, as neoclassicals are so good at.  Too much aggregation in other words.  He is using some subjective definition of "the common good," most likely GDP.  No, I cannot offer a better definition.  I don't believe it is possible because value is subjective to the individual and therefore cannot be quantified to determine "average" value.  So if we have no viable definition for what we are trying to achieve by monetary or fiscal planning, then how can we reasonably expect to achieve it?  We can achieve a favourable outcome for one "cluster" of the population who have similar ordinal value scales, but only at the expense of another group.  Moreover, some will be made better off in some respects and worse off in others.  The effects are a complete cluster$#@!: also unmeasurable for any useful purpose.  
> 
> Ok, so maybe it is just my subjective opinion on GDP accounting.  Maybe others think it does accurately reflect their well-being.  No, doesn't matter.  Sometimes, what is best for the majority isn't the "proper" course of action for the long-term "wealth of nations."  For example, back in the horse and buggy days, the declining availability in buggy parts inconvenienced the many at the expense of the few, which were now benefiting from the transferred investment from buggy parts to auto parts, which would, within 10 years, make substituting the auto for the buggy economical.  The "punitive" higher interest rates for a buggy part maker didn't allow them to refinance their loans, so the transfer of investment moneys was accelerated by the bankruptcy.  Instead, had there been a central bank back then, interest rates would have been lowered, the investment would have been maintained in the buggy sector and the adoption of the auto would have been slower as a result.  Perhaps America would have lost its chance to be the world's dominant automaker.  The creative destruction of the buggy part industry would first have a negative effect on GDP, unemployment would rise, etc.  But the saving that was taking place at its expense would yield a higher GDP in the future if it were allowed.  These are the types of problems occurring right now, although we can't see them.  We don't know what financial innovations would have replaced our credit based monetary system.  Perhaps we'd already be reaping its benefits.  
> 
> How is this relevant to the primary argument in the thread, predictability of the future?  Well, we cannot predict what people will want and we cannot predict how a certain intervention will effect the entire economy.  We can't even define "the economy."  What we _can_ say is that allowing individuals to make the maximum amount of decisions on their own behalf will result in a better outcome for their own well-being than any alternative.  This does not mean humans are perfectly rational.  They make mistakes.  Lots of them.  Sometimes huge mistakes.  But on balance, more people make more rational decisions for themselves than can be made for them - for one simple reason: better information (about their own ordinal value scale, and how to achieve it).  To suggest otherwise is extremely arrogant; suggesting that you know what somebody else wants better than they do.


I agree with the point about GDP. Economists have always thought more about consumption, but of course there are a lot of problems measuring utility. Obviously labor supply affects utility because people don't like working. These things are all in the mainstream models. They do make some simplifying assumptions that make the analysis easier. 

I've been very sympathetic to the Hayak type ideas in the thread, it is really hard to know the future. We should acknowledge the inherent tension between his brilliant ideas and the people that claim to know what will happen in the future. 

And the good thing that I think people don't recognize at the forum is that every mainstream economist believes in the price system and not a command economy as a way for trade to take place in our country.

----------


## Travlyr

> Actually, I'll take back my comment about cutting ababba slack.  He's being intentionally dishonest on numerous counts.  "AIG loan was collateralized, therefore it wasn't a bailout."  Give me a break.  As if losses on these sweetheart low-interest loans aren't eventually paid by the taxpayers through monetization.


This is why I asked him "Why?" His viewpoint is not consistent with liberty, peace, or prosperity for the masses.

----------


## ababba

I wish I could multi-quote but I think the previous 4 or 5 posts really get at the heart of a disagreement we are having. 

You guys are talking about things that the Fed could hypothetically do, meaning things that are in their power. I'm talking about things that they've actually done. You are objecting to bad things that could potentially happen in the future because nothing legally stops the Fed from doing them. 

To paraphrase your argument, its about the potential for the Fed to do things without checks and balances, rather than what they have actually done.

----------


## Travlyr

> I wish I could multi-quote but I think the previous 4 or 5 posts really get at the heart of a disagreement we are having.


I agree. I think it is your dishonesty that is the most irritating.

----------


## Jim Casey

Here's where economic understanding is going to arrive:


Be forewarned, however.  Discussions of these arrivals in economic understanding often result in the thread becoming displaced to another subforum.

----------


## ababba

> Actually, I'll take back my comment about cutting ababba slack.  He's being intentionally dishonest on numerous counts.  "AIG loan was collateralized, therefore it wasn't a bailout."  Give me a break.  As if losses on these sweetheart low-interest loans aren't eventually paid by the taxpayers through monetization.


Default risk should obviously increase the interest rate on loans. On the other hand, higher quality collateral should decrease that interest rate. From what I understand, from a practical perspective, the Fed has not suffered any major losses on its loans to AIG. 

Of course that's a bad measure of the potential for losses ex ante, but ex post there have actually been gains for the Fed. 

A bailout to me is about giving money to a company, usually an insolvent company, in order to allow them to keep operating. 

The AIG case was really about loaning AIG money in order to let them wind down their balance sheet over time. It was more about liquidity and it wasn't done with the goal of keeping AIG open after the loan. I think the fact that the Fed chose not to make the same deal with Lehman is telling that AIG actually did have reasonable collateral to back up this loan.

----------


## StilesBC

> I agree with the point about GDP. Economists have always thought more about consumption, but of course there are a lot of problems measuring utility. Obviously labor supply affects utility because people don't like working. These things are all in the mainstream models. They do make some simplifying assumptions that make the analysis easier. 
> 
> I've been very sympathetic to the Hayak type ideas in the thread, it is really hard to know the future. We should acknowledge the inherent tension between his brilliant ideas and the people that claim to know what will happen in the future. 
> 
> And the good thing that I think people don't recognize at the forum is that every mainstream economist believes in the price system and not a command economy as a way for trade to take place in our country.


I can agree with some of that last bit.  Quite often "interventionist" economists will be criticized here for being socialist, which can be a bit sensationalist.  They can be criticized for other things that would more accurately reflect their views.  Like pointing out how it is quite hypocritical to believe the price system is good when prices are rising, but bad when prices are falling.  Or how intervention in any sense is a manipulation of prices and an indirect statement that they believe the prices are wrong and the price system can be somehow enhanced by omniscience.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Humans have been interacting for thousands of years and the masses are just now coming to an understanding of economics. Thanks Internet! 
> 
> I think the ruling class has understood it all along. Hence, teach the children Keynesian bull$#@!, and ban those other guys. It was a nice little wealth making secret for them.


Humans have always understood economics.  The ruling class has made it, this time, incomprehensible; only for the upper echelons of educated society (Wall Street).  The truth is, once you understand what money is, you know more about real economics than most people.  Economics has always been something people understood under the free market system.  We have now departed so far from that, that nobody knows what the hell is going on and they resign themselves to "just the way it is."  Yet, if they understood how the markets work, and how the currency will inevitably expand and contract under a fiat currency with fixed prices, then it would all be so clear.  It only took me ten minutes of reading to be able to understand it to the point where I could actually explain it in common sense terms.  It's not hard to understand, and it's something we've lost touch with because we don't know any better.  

Now, it is different.  People are waking up and they are seeing the farce they have been living under, unwittingly, for years.

----------


## Travlyr

> Here's where economic understanding is going to arrive:
> 
> 
> Be forewarned, however.  Discussions of these arrivals in economic understanding often result in the thread becoming displaced to another subforum.


We've looked at that and it is dishonest too.

Why not be honest with each other and enjoy a peaceful life rather than forcing a bunch of crap down people throats and beat them if they resist?

----------


## Jim Casey

People are waking up and realizing that intelligent resource management is the key to economic understanding, rather than the outdated methods of monetary exchange.

http://thevenusproject.com/en/the-ve...troduction/faq

_It is not money that people require, but rather free access to most of their needs without worrying about financial security or having to appeal to a government bureaucracy. In a resource-based economy of abundance, money will become irrelevant._

----------


## Jim Casey

> We've looked at that and it is dishonest too.
> 
> Why not be honest with each other and enjoy a peaceful life rather than forcing a bunch of crap down people throats and beat them if they resist?


Unfortunately, we were all born into a system of monetary exchange.  The use of money has been forced down our throat.  The arrival at a resource based economic model is kind of a gag reflex to this enforced engorging of money.

----------


## Travlyr

> Unfortunately, we were all born into a system of monetary exchange.  The use of money has been forced down our throat.  The arrival at a resource based economic model is kind of a gag reflex to this enforced engorging of money.


Okay. Again, what is your objection to peace and honesty?

----------


## StilesBC

> To paraphrase your argument, its about the potential for the Fed to do things without checks and balances, rather than what they have actually done.


No, not mine anyway.  I do have issues with what the Fed has already done.  I just don't know what they have done.  What would have happened if they hadn't intervened.  I want that outcome.  Not their irrational maintenance of the status quo for "stability's" sake.  Maybe I don't want stability.  Maybe I want asset prices to return to their mean values relative to incomes.  Maybe I want higher interest rates so I can use my skills to invest in income producing businesses, rather than trying to operate those businesses myself as I am forced to do with lower interest rates.  Who knows what else I might want, but don't even have an opportunity to conceive because investment was driven toward something with a shorter time horizon due to low rates.

----------


## Teaser Rate

> I think some of you guys are being $#@!s to ababba. He seems like a pretty knowledgable person on the subject, so if he's wrong, debate him, don't try making fun of him and telling him to leave an online forum. If this forum only had "omg kill the government anarchy yay yay yay" people I would've never joined. The whole point is to talk about different stances on issues. 
> 
> As an econ minor this is a very interesting issue and I don't know enough to say that either theory is better for the economy as a whole. I think Keynesian theory is immoral just because the government is spending the citizen's money for them, but I don't know if it's necessarily worse for the economy as a whole than Austrian economics - economists all disagree - there is no one supreme answer, and there may never be.


+rep 

The major problem I have with debating people on the economics forum is not that theyre too passionate; its that they cant distinguish between fact and ideology. Its okay to believe that inflation is going to pick up, and its even okay to believe that the government is evil. But dont bring up the fact that you believe that the government is evil to defend your stance on upcoming inflation. To quote the great Thomas Sowell: _"Just as a poetic discussion of the weather is not meteorology, so an issuance of moral pronouncements or political creeds about the economy is not economics. Economics is a study of cause-and-effect relationships in an economy."_

----------


## Jim Casey

> Okay. Again, what is your objection to peace and honesty?


I only have faith that peace and honesty can exist when within a suitable societal architecture.  When you deny people the basic necessities of life in order to obtain labor or money in exchange for these survival needs, it behooves people to place their survival first and foremost, and creates an environment where peace and honesty are unlikely possibilities rather than likely probabilities.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I wish I could multi-quote but I think the previous 4 or 5 posts really get at the heart of a disagreement we are having. 
> 
> You guys are talking about things that the Fed could hypothetically do, meaning things that are in their power. I'm talking about things that they've actually done. You are objecting to bad things that could potentially happen in the future because nothing legally stops the Fed from doing them. 
> 
> To paraphrase your argument, its about the potential for the Fed to do things without checks and balances, rather than what they have actually done.


What are you talking about?  The Fed commits fraud all the time by creating money out of thin air and loaning it to banks as assets in the books, which then loan it to customers, expanding the money supply and creating a currency bubble that only perpetuates the need for the Fed's unconstitutional actions of creating more money, inflating the currency, expanding and contracting the markets, etc. until the currency eventually loses its value.  The only way they can keep the system afloat is by outlawing every other type of currency except the one we have and fixing prices so that we must pretend the money has value.  Eventually, it will collapse, though, as is inevitable.

----------


## steve005

> When you deny people the basic necessities of life in order to obtain labor or money in exchange for these survival needs


so me not giving away for free whatever extra I have is now called denying people their basic necessities of life?

lol

----------


## StilesBC

> I only have faith that peace and honesty can exist when within a suitable societal architecture.  When you deny people the basic necessities of life in order to obtain labor or money in exchange for these survival needs, it behooves people to place their survival first and foremost, and creates an environment where peace and honesty are unlikely possibilities rather than likely probabilities.


Jim, please read Matt Ridley's _The Rational Optimist_.  It will dispose of your irrational hate for exchange.

----------


## Travlyr

> I only have faith that peace and honesty can exist when within a suitable societal architecture.  When you deny people the basic necessities of life in order to obtain labor or money in exchange for these survival needs, it behooves people to place their survival first and foremost, and creates an environment where peace and honesty are unlikely possibilities rather than likely probabilities.


Peace and honesty already exist for most of us. It is people like you and central bankers that force us into suitable societal architecture (prisons).

----------


## Teaser Rate

> Humans have always understood economics.  The ruling class has made it, this time, incomprehensible; only for the upper echelons of educated society (Wall Street).  The truth is, once you understand what money is, you know more about real economics than most people.  Economics has always been something people understood under the free market system.  We have now departed so far from that, that nobody knows what the hell is going on and they resign themselves to "just the way it is."  Yet, if they understood how the markets work, and how the currency will inevitably expand and contract under a fiat currency with fixed prices, then it would all be so clear.  It only took me ten minutes of reading to be able to understand it to the point where I could actually explain it in common sense terms.  It's not hard to understand, and it's something we've lost touch with because we don't know any better.  
> 
> Now, it is different.  People are waking up and they are seeing the farce they have been living under, unwittingly, for years.


This is a perfect example of what Stephen Hawkins was talking about when he said _"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."_

Anyone who's studied economics beyond an introductory undergraduate level can understand how complex and unintuitive the subject really is. Economists have spent decades trying to understand monetary policy and they still don't have a full grasp of it. To believe that you can understand it in 10 minutes is a spectacularly arrogant display of ignorance.

----------


## Jim Casey

> so me not giving away for free whatever extra I have is now called denying people their basic necessities of life?
> 
> lol


You would have access to much more than you do today in the resource based economic model.  There would be no need for us to exchange anything because we would all have equal access to everything.
http://thevenusproject.com/en/the-ve...troduction/faq faq #8



> What you had to say about the rich and powerful being resistant to such a society in many cases is true, however if they keep using automation in their industries, as they have to in order to compete, millions of people will be replaced by machines. This includes not only the assembly line workers but also doctors, engineers, architects and the like. As they lose their purchasing power, the very industries that depend on them can no longer function. This will bring an end to the old outworn monetary system. It is not a question of them giving up their industries; it is that their greed will eventually render them obsolete.
> 
> Only when science and technology are used with human concern in a world in which all of the earth's resources are held as the common heritage of all of the earth's people can we truly say that there is intelligent life on earth.


I recently watched Peter Schiff's analysis of technological unemployment.  


Here is my assessment of his analysis that I posted elsewhere:
http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/...lang=en#341586



> Schiff also says that the increased productivity and lowered production costs leads to demand in other areas. This is not true. Demand has to be fabricated. The second highest paid career field is in demand fabrication, or marketing. The only career field that pays higher than marketing is fund managing, which is very much involved in creating conditions under which demand can more easily be fabricated, such as investing funds in corporations that put other nations into debt with their resources as collateral.





> Peace and honesty already exist for most of us. It is people like you and central bankers that force us into suitable societal architecture (prisons).


Prisons are only suitable within a system of monetary exchange.  Indeed, they are a rapidly growing sector of high profitability and also opportunities for union employment as prison guards.  When everybody has access to the basic necessities of life, there are fewer instances of the kind of disruptive behavior that lead to imprisonment.

----------


## Travlyr

> Anyone who's studied economics beyond an introductory undergraduate level can understand how complex and unintuitive the subject really is. Economists have spent decades trying to understand monetary policy and they still don't have a full grasp of it. To believe that you can understand it in 10 minutes is a spectacularly arrogant display of ignorance.


It is indeed tough to get a grasp of the scale of the scams the central banks have engaged in. I'll give you that. They have been quite secretive over the years. That is why we want a full comprehensive audit before we put you guys out to pasture. It would be good to let someone look into Fort Knox as well.

Paul gets it. You are the one wanting to enslave people.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> This is a perfect example of what Stephen Hawkins was talking about when he said _"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."_
> 
> Anyone who's studied economics beyond an introductory undergraduate level can understand how complex and unintuitive the subject really is. Economists have spent decades trying to understand monetary policy and they still don't have a full grasp of it. To believe that you can understand it in 10 minutes is a spectacularly arrogant display of ignorance.


I disagree.  While you may be talking about economic policy and how the money _moves_ I'm talking about the principles of the market.  There is a direct cause-and-effect link between the commodities and the currency, which is merely a medium of exchange for true wealth.  I don't have to take an introductory course to Keynsian economics.  Of course it would seem confusing then because I would be going down a never-ending rabbit hole that resulted in the whole Ponzi scheme our monetary system is now based on.  All people really need to see is the market principles in action, and they can see it plain as day how money acts as a medium of exchange.  You can't force people to trade for things that have no value or else people will lose confidence in the system and it will fail.  That's what's happening now, and that's how Ron was able to predict the collapse of 2008.  I don't need you to apply me to Hawking's ramblings either.  That is the pretense of truth.  If you see something you assume is true and then you go and find an example of it, of course it will seem legitimate to you.  Your whole thinking is based on the pretense of knowledge.

----------


## steve005

> You would have access to much more than you do today in the resource based economic model. There would be no need for us to exchange anything because we would all have equal access to everything.



dude, you are in the wrong place. we don't want that crap whatever you call it's socialism.
and anyway, what more would I have access to then I do today? I can get anything I need, so what is it that I would get then that I cant get now?



> Prisons are only suitable within a system of monetary exchange. Indeed, they are a rapidly growing sector of high profitability and also opportunities for union employment as prison guards


um.. you ignored the point he was making




> When everybody has access to the basic necessities of life, there are fewer instances of the kind of disruptive behavior that lead to imprisonment.


how can you say people don't have access to the basic necessities of life? they can go to a shelter, is that not a basic necessity of life? they can go to the freestore, hell they can even get a food stamp card and cash card, and spend the food stamp card on drugs, pop and chips. so how is what you are trying to say any different from what we have today?

also what you're saying about fewer instances of disruptive behavior that lead to imprisonment is also wrong, drugs and the risk to sell them, and the addicts trying to get the money to buy them make up 90%(give or take) of all crime. when you look at the facts; like cocain costs the same as sugar to make. just look at the countries that have made them all legal; crime went away and drug use WENT DOWN

----------


## Jim Casey

> This is a perfect example of what Stephen Hawkins was talking about when he said _"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."_
> 
> Anyone who's studied economics beyond an introductory undergraduate level can understand how complex and unintuitive the subject really is. Economists have spent decades trying to understand monetary policy and they still don't have a full grasp of it. To believe that you can understand it in 10 minutes is a spectacularly arrogant display of ignorance.


One very important money based economic model concept to understand is that of cyclical consumption.  This clip will help you improve your understanding of this concept in less than 10 minutes.





> dude, you are in the wrong place. we don't want that crap whatever you call it's socialism.
> and anyway, what more would I have access to then I do today? I can get anything I need, so what is it that I would get then that I cant get now?


Today, your access to resources is limited to level of purchasing power.  In the resource based economy model, you would have access to just about anything that money can buy today and more.  Production levels would be based upon time usage, rather than bargained profitability.



> how can you say people don't have access to the basic necessities of life? they can go to a shelter, is that not a basic necessity of life? they can go to the freestore, hell they can even get a food stamp card and cash card, and spend the food stamp card on drugs, pop and chips. so how is what you are trying to say any different from what we have today?


There are limits to what your food stamp card can access you to.  We can get rid of those limits.



> also what you're saying about fewer instances of disruptive behavior that lead to imprisonment is also wrong, drugs and the risk to sell them, and the addicts trying to get the money to buy them make up 90%(give or take) of all crime. when you look at the facts; like cocain costs the same as sugar to make. just look at the countries that have made them all legal; crime went away and drug use WENT DOWN


Drug prohibition is profitable in a money based economic model.  Legalizing drugs cuts into profits.  Drug related charges fall under money related charges.

----------


## ababba

> What are you talking about?  The Fed commits fraud all the time by creating money out of thin air and loaning it to banks as assets in the books, which then loan it to customers, expanding the money supply and creating a currency bubble that only perpetuates the need for the Fed's unconstitutional actions of creating more money, inflating the currency, expanding and contracting the markets, etc. until the currency eventually loses its value.  The only way they can keep the system afloat is by outlawing every other type of currency except the one we have and fixing prices so that we must pretend the money has value.  Eventually, it will collapse, though, as is inevitable.


The Fed hasn't done two things that people in the thread have talked about it potentially doing. 

The first is a full scale monetization through a large inflation. 

The second is direct transfers of printed money to financial institutions, similar to the TARP program, without collateral.

----------


## steve005

> Today, your access to resources is limited to level of purchasing power. In the resource based economy model, you would have access to* just about anything that money can buy today* and more. Production levels would be* based upon time usage*, rather than* bargained profitability*.


so *just about*, *and more*, that doesn't work buddy, lol it doesnt even make sense





> There are limits to what your food stamp card can access you to. We can get rid of those limits


oh so more people get lazy, and they have to steal more from the ones who are being productive? are you crazy?




> Drug prohibition is profitable in a money based economic model


no you are wrong; drug prohibition is profitable in any economic model not just money based ones.




> Legalizing drugs cuts into profits


no it doesnt just cut into profits, it eleminates the black market all together and no one will profit (anymore then they do off sugar)




> Drug related charges fall under money related charges.


what is your point?

----------


## Teaser Rate

> I disagree.  While you may be talking about economic policy and how the money _moves_ I'm talking about the principles of the market.  There is a direct cause-and-effect link between the commodities and the currency, which is merely a medium of exchange for true wealth.  I don't have to take an introductory course to Keynsian economics.  Of course it would seem confusing then because I would be going down a never-ending rabbit hole that resulted in the whole Ponzi scheme our monetary system is now based on.  All people really need to see is the market principles in action, and they can see it plain as day how money acts as a medium of exchange.  You can't force people to trade for things that have no value or else people will lose confidence in the system and it will fail.  That's what's happening now, and that's how Ron was able to predict the collapse of 2008.  I don't need you to apply me to Hawking's ramblings either.  That is the pretense of truth.  If you see something you assume is true and then you go and find an example of it, of course it will seem legitimate to you.  Your whole thinking is based on the pretense of knowledge.


What you're essentially saying is that you don't need to understand something in order to dismiss it.

----------


## steve005

> What you're essentially saying is that you don't need to understand something in order to dismiss it.


I don't see how you got that from what he wrote?

----------


## Travlyr

> What you're essentially saying is that you don't need to understand something in order to dismiss it.


He does understand it. He clearly says it. We all know it is a fraud perpetuated upon the people and he rejects it.

----------


## Jim Casey

> so *just about*, *and more*, that doesn't work buddy, lol it doesnt even make sense


On the contrary, it does make sense.  You wouldn't have access to a market where you could sell stolen goods, but you could access everything you could steal today and you could access stuff that is even more durable and useful.



> oh so more people get lazy, and they have to steal more from the ones who are being productive? are you crazy?


People don't get lazy when they have their needs met.  They become more motivated.  It's really not people that are being most productive today either, it is machines.  Productivity is inverse to employment in nearly all sectors.





> no you are wrong; drug prohibition is profitable in any economic model not just money based ones.
> 
> no it doesnt just cut into profits, it eleminates the black market all together and no one will profit (anymore then they do off sugar)
> 
> what is your point?


The point is that when increasing purchasing power is the only means to increase access to resources, market manipulations such as drug prohibitions will continue to be aspects of this societal architecture that are in high demand.



> The Fed hasn't done two things that people in the thread have talked about it potentially doing. 
> 
> The first is a full scale monetization through a large inflation. 
> 
> The second is direct transfers of printed money to financial institutions, similar to the TARP program, without collateral.


The Fed is simply an example of the end result of any monetary system.  Getting rid of the the fed is like getting rid of the drug cartels.  There will continue to be a demand for such institutions as long as the society is operating within a money based economic model.

Get rid of the fed and we'll just have another institution doing what the fed does.  This clip is a pretty good example of what it does to expand its power globally.

----------


## steve005

> Getting rid of the the fed is like getting rid of the drug cartels. There will continue to be a demand for such institutions as long as the society is operating within a money based economic model.


no you are wrong. The system has to change; in both cases, you can't keep fighting the symptoms and not addressing the root cause. the root cause is fiat money and monopoly control and prohibition respectively. It's not the money based economic model that is to blame because essentially thats not what we have, we have fake money based economic system, not real




> You wouldn't have access to a market where you could sell stolen goods, but you could access everything you could steal today and you could access stuff that is even more durable and useful.


like I said 90% of crime is drug related, so why would people steal stuff if they already have access to their basic needs? 

It's pretty obvious to me that you have an agenda that you're pushing, anyone else? because you ignore the main debate points

----------


## Jim Casey

> no you are wrong. The system has to change; in both cases, you can't keep fighting the symptoms and not addressing the root cause. the root cause is fiat money and monopoly control and prohibition respectively. It's not the money based economic model that is to blame because essentially thats not what we have, we have fake money based economic system, not real


Money was designed as a convenience and developed into the most corrupting medium in history.  Fiat money, monopoly control, and prohibition are all simply aspects of a culture that emerge within a societal architecture of monetary exchange.  Fiat money, monopoly control, and prohibition all emerged within this culture because they work well for some within this culture.  Unless you offer something better to those that benefit from fiat money, monopoly control, and prohibition, there is no incentive for those who engage in those activities to relinquish their freedom to do so.

----------


## steve005

> Unless you *offer something* better to those that benefit from fiat money, monopoly control, and prohibition, there is no incentive for those who engage in those activities to relinquish their freedom to do so


what are you offering and who is them?




> Money was designed as a convenience and developed into the most corrupting medium in history.


yes I agree so why not restore its value with metal like it says in the con. and do it ourselves not a "central private federal researve"




> Fiat money, monopoly control, and prohibition are all simply aspects of a culture that emerge within a societal architecture of monetary exchange.


I disagree. completely. those things will always take place as long as their are egotistical people, not as long as we use "money"





> Fiat money, monopoly control, and prohibition all emerged within this culture because they work well for some within this culture


yes the powers to be, so why should we appease them?

----------


## steve005

also why do you pick and choose which point to address instead of just going thru each one? maybe because your pushing an agenda, either because your being paid to do so(not a very good job I might add) or your just completely mis-lead. either way I hope the best for you and your "equal money" crap

----------


## Hotchney

> Money was designed as a convenience and developed into the most corrupting medium in history.  Fiat money, monopoly control, and prohibition are all simply aspects of a culture that emerge within a societal architecture of monetary exchange.  Fiat money, monopoly control, and prohibition all emerged within this culture because they work well for some within this culture.  Unless you offer something better to those that benefit from fiat money, monopoly control, and prohibition, there is no incentive for those who engage in those activities to relinquish their freedom to do so.


Money wasn't designed. It is a good that emerged from the market and was then traded on the market for other goods. Money is simply a good many people value and find easiest to trade with, hence its role as a medium of exchange.

Nothing "better" needs to be offered. We only need people to understand the crime being committed (fraud). If someone doesn't know they are being robbed and it is difficult for them to realize this, it is hard to convince them they are being robbed. But when they realize this, they get hopping mad and demand justice.

----------


## Jim Casey

> what are you offering and who is them?


Who benefits from fiat money, monopoly control, and prohibition?  There is a large segment of the population that acquires purchasing power based upon these behaviors.  The alternative I offer is the resource based economic model.





> yes I agree so why not restore its value with metal like it says in the con. and do it ourselves not a "central private federal researve"


The reason why not is that it is a win-lose proposition.  It's a loss for the people who benefit from fiat money, and a win for people who've hoarded precious metals, bitcoins, or whatever the latest circus sideshow alternative to the fed is.



> I disagree. completely. those things will always take place as long as their are egotistical people, not as long as we use "money"


We need to master our egos rather than be mastered by them if we want to transcend problems resulting from egotistical behaviors.



> yes the powers to be, so why should we appease them?


If we don't work for the benefit of everyone, we will be in conflict with some.  John Forbes Nash developed a lot of very useful ideas on this basis. 



> also why do you pick and choose which point to address instead of just going thru each one? maybe because your pushing an agenda, either because your being paid to do so(not a very good job I might add) or your just completely mis-lead. either way I hope the best for you and your "equal money" crap


It is misleading to say I advocate equal money.  I advocate a societal architecture of access abundance where the use of money has been rendered obsolete.

Faq #6 addresses this issue in greater detail.

http://thevenusproject.com/en/the-ve...troduction/faq




> Most important, when the corporation's bottom line is profit, decisions in all areas are made not for the benefit of people and the environment, but primarily for the acquisition of wealth, property, and power.


Since you repeatedly demand my further consideration of your points, I will selflessly provide you with a link that shows how even the sugar market is manipulated by prohibitive measures, although I doubt this act will improve your assessment of my job performance.

http://tribune.com.pk/story/75263/su...-manipulation/



> Money wasn't designed. It is a good that emerged from the market and was then traded on the market for other goods. Money is simply a good many people value and find easiest to trade with, hence its role as a medium of exchange.
> 
> Nothing "better" needs to be offered. We only need people to understand the crime being committed (fraud). If someone doesn't know they are being robbed and it is difficult for them to realize this, it is hard to convince them they are being robbed. But when they realize this, they get hopping mad and demand justice.


Seeking justice can get you killed.  Judges are bought and sold just as easily as politicians.  It is very possible to offer something better than anger directed at scapegoats that are merely products of a culture.  If you design a society where there is no incentive to steal or engage in fraud, than you won't have to get angry or fearful about all those productive thieves out there.

Money was designed for trading.  Trading was designed for property.  Property emerged based upon fear of scarcity along with a presupposition of noncooperation.

----------


## efiniti

> He needs to get his facts right about the mortgage crisis, he doesn't understand even basic facts about what happened. 
> 
> The average teaser rate on a subprime loan was several percent higher than the average prime loan (because of lower credit quality). Therefore its impossible for people to choose ARM subprime over FRM prime as a way to make a mortgage more affordable. This really shows a lack of basic understanding of the data.


But obviously people took out subprime loans because they couldn't take out prime loans, correct?




> The notion that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac originated loans that wouldn't get funded in the private sector because of the government guarantee is beyond idiotic. Fannie and Freddie only originated high credit quality loans with low loan to value, conforming size, low debt to income and high FICO scores. It was the subprime lenders which didn't have the government guarantee which made the loans to the worst credit risks.


Fannie and Freddie at one point bought over 44% of subprime loans.  Are you denying this?  Peter's point is that if there wasn't a buyer of subprime loans (Fannie and Freddie) then there weren't have been so many subprime loans being made in the first place.  Capital would have still been misallocated because of the Fed no doubt but having government agencies subsidize these investments only gave more incentive to make them.

----------


## ClayTrainor

lol, you know an economics thread is on a road to nowhere when Jim Casey gets involved.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> *I think some of you guys are being $#@!s to ababba. He seems like a pretty knowledgable person on the subject, so if he's wrong, debate him, don't try making fun of him and telling him to leave an online forum.* If this forum only had "omg kill the government anarchy yay yay yay" people I would've never joined. The whole point is to talk about different stances on issues.


+1

----------


## Diurdi

Seriously stop with the Venus Project/Resource based economy stuff. It basicly requires infinite resources to work, otherwise the persons allocating the resources will be nothing more than some Soviet time comissar. It's one of those scams for the street-level man like extreme socialism was in the beginning of the 20th century, it promises pink ponies and flowers but will result in a total disaster.

This is how they have "cleverly" solved to problem of scarcity: *People want stuff. People can't get stuff because people don't have money. If you make money illegal then people can have everything. Scarcity solved, the only reason people didn't get stuff was cause of greedy capitalist.*

This is one of the quotes of how resource based economy would work:




> Consider the following examples: At the beginning of World War II the US had a mere 600 or so first-class fighting aircraft. We rapidly overcame this short supply by turning out more than 90,000 planes a year. The question at the start of World War II was: Do we have enough funds to produce the required implements of war? The answer was no, we did not have enough money, nor did we have enough gold; but we did have more than enough resources. It was the available resources that enabled the US to achieve the high production and efficiency required to win the war. Unfortunately this is only considered in times of war.


Anyone with some common economic knowledge will realise that the fact that US managed to start their huge war machine came at the expense of every other aspect of life. Rationing, limited freedom and lowered economic standards. Simply throwing money out of the equation is not going to result in prosperity, quote the contrary. They also don't realise that (commodity) money is something absolutely natural that results when people trade with eachother.

----------


## Jim Casey

> Seriously stop with the Venus Project/Resource based economy stuff. It basicly requires infinite resources to work, otherwise the persons allocating the resources will be nothing more than some Soviet time comissar. It's one of those scams for the street-level man like extreme socialism was in the beginning of the 20th century, it promises pink ponies and flowers but will result in a total disaster.


The Venus Project is based entirely upon strategic design for accessing finite resources.  Relating it to Soviets is a knee-jerk reaction based upon surface level associations, and associations to pink ponies and flowers are simply excuses not to look further into the resource based economic model.



> This is how they have "cleverly" solved to problem of scarcity: *People want stuff. People can't get stuff because people don't have money. If you make money illegal then people can have everything. Scarcity solved, the only reason people didn't get stuff was cause of greedy capitalist.*


The resource based economic model isn't about making money illegal.  It is about designing a system of strategic access that renders the use of money obsolete, just like domestication of animals made hunting obsolete.

Eventually, capitalism will collapse from its own greed.  Technological unemployment is something too many tend to dismiss.  



> This is one of the quotes of how resource based economy would work:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone with some common economic knowledge will realise that the fact that US managed to start their huge war machine came at the expense of every other aspect of life. Rationing, limited freedom and lowered economic standards. Simply throwing money out of the equation is not going to result in prosperity, quote the contrary. They also don't realise that (commodity) money is something absolutely natural that results when people trade with eachother.


Once again, the resource based economic model isn't simply throwing money out of the equation.  It is using resources to design a system of strategic access that renders money obsolete.  Technological unemployment is already taking us in that direction.  Human productivity is simply not going to compete with automated productivity in a monetary system, and newly devised jobs and other schemes to keep the system of monetary exchange going also will not be able to compete with a system of strategic access designed to maintain dynamic equilibrium of accounted resources when the proper steps are followed of going from a growth state economy to a steady state economy, from a system of competition to a system of collaboration, from a dispersed system to a planned system, to replacing human labor with automation, and then yes, finally, from a system of property to a system of access.

We did once need money for our society to survive and prosper, just like we once needed to hunt and gather for our society to survive and prosper, but once societal updates are made, previously necessary behaviors are rendered obsolete.  This is the emergent nature of mankind.

----------


## Diurdi

I would want to know when the day occurs when human becomes obsolete and machines do everything for us so I don't have to work because there is superabundance.

I mean, thus far all technological unemployment has been purely beneficial for the economy, we're not running out of work to do - and those who get unemployed because some industries have no use for human labour anymore can pursue other, more productive activities.

In a free society no matter how technological advanced, as long as there is trade there will be money. A resource based economy would "hand out" goods based on central planning, you know how good that works. Without a price system it is impossible for the whole complex system to move resources to their most useful location, resources would be wasted in unimportant projects while important projects would lack resources.

As I said, resource based economy is truly shamanism for the uneducated desperate person, just like the promises of wonderful socialism in early 20th century.

----------


## Jim Casey

> I would want to know when the day occurs when human becomes obsolete and machines do everything for us so I don't have to work because there is superabundance.
> I can't see that happening... ever?
> 
> I mean, thus far all technological unemployment has been purely beneficial for the economy, we're not running out of work to do - and those who get unemployed because some industries have no use for human labour anymore can pursue other activities.
> 
> In a free society no matter how technological advanced, as long as there is trade there will be money.


If technology is used to render trade and money obsolete within a society, that society will truly be free to engage in activities other than trade and monetary exchange for it's survival and prosperity.

The technologically unemployed are only free to engage in other activities insofar as they have access to not only what they need to survive, but also whatever resources are necessary to engage in those other activities.  In a monetary system, we often see the unemployed turning to criminal behavior and winding up within profitable privately owned prisons.  People who lose their jobs are much more inclined to steal than go get an education they can't afford in the hope of obtaining employment in another field that will likely also be facing the prospect of technological unemployment.

It's not a matter of humans becoming obsolete, but the replacing of human labor with automation on a large enough scale so as to render the need for exchanging labor for wages obsolete.

----------


## Diurdi

> If technology is used to render trade and money obsolete within a society, that society will truly be free to engage in activities other than trade and monetary exchange for it's survival and prosperity.
> 
> The technologically unemployed are only free to engage in other activities insofar as they have access to not only what they need to survive, but also whatever resources are necessary to engage in those other activities.  In a monetary system, we often see the unemployed turning to criminal behavior and winding up within profitable privately owned prisons.  People who lose their jobs are much more inclined to steal than go get an education they can't afford in the hope of obtaining employment in another field that will likely also be facing the prospect of technological unemployment.
> 
> It's not a matter of humans becoming obsolete, but the replacing of human labor with automation on a large enough scale so as to render the need for exchanging labor for wages obsolete.


 No... When technology replaces human labour, human labour can move into more productive areas. You don't need 20 people per potato field anymore, you can just leave two guys who drive the tractor. Now the two guys can support the food necessities of 20 people, and the 18 others can pursue activities beyond harvesting potato. We've had all these technological innovations that have made whole professions obsolete, and still those people have found other employment. Unemployed do not normally turn into vicious criminals, they simply find another job as we're not running out of work to do.

But I can't see how it would ever be obsolete to exchange labour with wages?

Seriously, what you're saying makes no sense.

----------


## Jim Casey

> No... When technology replaces human labour, human labour can move into more productive areas. You don't need 20 people per potato field anymore, you can just leave two guys who drive the tractor. Now the two guys can support the food necessities of 20 people, and the 18 others can pursue activities beyond harvesting potato. We've had all these technological innovations that have made whole professions obsolete, and still those people have found other employment. Unemployed do not normally turn into vicious criminals, they simply find another job as we're not running out of work to do.
> 
> But I can't see how it would ever be obsolete to exchange labour with wages?
> 
> Seriously, what you're saying makes no sense.


Human labor can only move to other productive areas insofar as demand exists for productive human labor in other areas.  If the demand doesn't exist, it has to be fabricated.  The second highest paying career field is in demand fabrication, or marketing.  The only career field that pays more than marketing is fund management, which is often directly involved in creating an environment that facilitates demand fabrication, such as investing funds in corporations that put other nations into debt with their resources as collateral.

Demand for human labor in other areas is only going to increase at the level in which you can get money flowing into those other areas.  The area I am most interested in seeing demand for human labor increasing is in working toward the development of a society that operates on the resource based economic model that will render obsolete the need for monetary exchange with a system of strategic access.

The labor for wages game will become obsolete within the resource based economic model.  It might not have made sense to people who spent their entire lives hunting that domestication of animals would render the need to hunt animals obsolete, but societies eventually figured it out.

----------


## Diurdi

Ok you lost me. If you're saying that there will be a point when human labour is not going to be of any value then you're wrong.
Money will only become obsolete when there simply is infinite resources and people stop trading.

The resource based economic mumbojumbo cannot work unless there is unlimited resources, and at that point the "theory" is obsolete anyway.
What's the point?

Venus project = marxism.

----------


## Jim Casey

> Ok you lost me. If you're saying that there will be a point when human labour is not going to be of any value then you're wrong.
> Money will only become obsolete when there simply is infinite resources and people stop trading.
> 
> The resource based economic mumbojumbo cannot work unless there is unlimited resources, and at that point the "theory" is obsolete anyway.
> What's the point?
> 
> Venus project = marxism.


Karl Marx and his philosophies have been highly influential within the political area for the past century.  However, The Venus Project values technical solutions to societal problems, rather than political or monetary solutions.  This is where the major divergence from Marxism occurs.

There need not be unlimited resources in order for dynamic equilibrium to be maintained within a system of strategic access that renders monetary exchange and trading obsolete anymore than there needed to be unlimited animals for domestication of animals to render hunting as a means of obtaining food obsolete.

Many very valuable forms of human activity can accurately be described as labor.  Right now, I'm teaching you about the resource based economic model and some people get paid to teach.  However, I'm doing the teaching without demanding monetary compensation.

----------


## steve005

can't these guys just be banned, it pretty clear they have an agenda and have nothing to do with ron paul

----------


## Diurdi

> There need not be unlimited resources in order for dynamic equilibrium to be maintained within a system of strategic access that renders monetary exchange and trading obsolete anymore than there needed to be unlimited animals for domestication of animals to render hunting as a means of obtaining food obsolete.


So how the hell are resources allocated then? By a central governing authority correct? How can this central government possible allocated resources better than people and money could.

Your "strategic access" means that if you need it you can take it right? How do you know if someone needs it? Is there enough of everything that people could possibly want that people without the need for them to work to produce it? Sorry, but this all again assumes infinite resources.

Sorry but this is ridiculous, you're ruining a perfectly good thread by this voodoo.

----------


## Jim Casey

> can't these guys just be banned, it pretty clear they have an agenda and have nothing to do with ron paul


Seeing as how Ron Paul does advocate monetary reform...


...there is some congruence with the mission statement of the Zeitgeist movement.
http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/



> This "Resource-Based Economic Model” is about taking a direct technical approach to social management as opposed to a Monetary or even Political one. It is about updating the workings of society to the most advanced and proven methods Science has to offer, leaving behind the damaging consequences and limiting inhibitions which are generated by our current system of monetary exchange, profits, corporations and other structural and motivational components.
> ...
> For instance, while "Monetary Reform" itself is not an end solution proposed by The Movement, the merit of such legislative approaches are still considered valid in the context of transition and temporal integrity. Likewise, while food and clothes drives and other supportive projects to help those in need today is also not considered a long term solution, it is still considered valid in the context of helping others in a time of need, while also drawing awareness to the principle goal.





> So how the hell are resources allocated then? By a central governing authority correct? How can this central government possible allocated resources better than people and money could.
> 
> Your "strategic access" means that if you need it you can take it right? How do you know if someone needs it? Is there enough of everything that people could possibly want that people can just grab it without the need for them to produce it? Sorry, but this all again assumes infinite resources.
> 
> Sorry but this is ridiculous, you're ruining a perfectly good thread by this voodoo.


Decisions for resource allocation are arrived at based upon principles of resource accounting, dynamic equilibrium, and strategic access.  No central governing authority necessary when the system is designed to meet these parameters.  Strategic access based upon time-use utility rather than monetary bargaining based upon property claims does not require unlimited resources, but rather maintenance of dynamic equilibrium of accounted resources.

----------


## Travlyr

> +1


+1 eh?

The OP included a profound truth:


> There is, however, only one proper economic theory and it will win out as our knowledge is built and shared.



Liberty, Peace, and Prosperity.
Peace is our middle name. 

Central banks perpetuate control through violence ... that's what they do. War for Peace. 

Most of us are working for liberty, peace, and prosperity using honest money as prescribed by the good Dr. Ron Paul.

Central planning supporters are backing enslavement, violence, and poverty as perpetuated on the people through debasement of currency and force of control. That's not liberty.

We are not wimps. It's time to learn the truths and choose sides.

----------


## steve005

> Decisions for resource allocation are arrived at based upon principles of resource accounting, dynamic equilibrium, and strategic access. No central governing authority necessary when the system is designed to meet these parameters. Strategic access based upon time-use utility rather than monetary bargaining based upon property claims does not require unlimited resources, but rather maintenance of dynamic equilibrium of accounted resources


You threw a few big words in there but what your really saying is that the software is going to be set up using principles of resource accounting. then that software, made by a handful of people, is going to decide best where resources are to go? this is insane, you really falling for this or are you being paid? the latter wouldn't suprise me

ron paul want to go back to the gold standard, not some fairy tail dreamer $#@!

----------


## Diurdi

> Decisions for resource allocation are arrived at based upon principles of resource accounting, dynamic equilibrium, and strategic access.  No central governing authority necessary when the system is designed to meet these parameters.  Strategic access based upon time-use utility rather than monetary bargaining based upon property claims does not require unlimited resources, but rather maintenance of dynamic equilibrium of accounted resources.


That's a load of mumbojumbo that means nothing. What's "resource accounting"? 
Someone has to calculate how and what shall be produced right? How can you not need a central government for that in the absence of money?
How can you possibly maintain centrally governed dynamic equilibrium without causing shortages or excess?


Ron Paul has nothing whatsoever to do with your central planned socialist dystopia. Ron Paul advocates freedom, you do the exact opposite.
I'm willing to bet that you'll feel pretty embarassed when you realise your centrally planned wonderwork is actually nothing more than shamanism.

----------


## StilesBC

Jim, 

Literally, every sentence you write is a fallacy large enough to write a book on.

----------


## hugolp

> lol, you know an economics thread is on a road to nowhere when Jim Casey gets involved.


Indeed. The guy is a machine of ignoring logic and repeating his message.

----------


## Jim Casey

> You threw a few big words in there but what your really saying is that the software is going to be set up using principles of resource accounting. then that software, made by a handful of people, is going to decide best where resources are to go? this is insane, you really falling for this or are you being paid? the latter wouldn't suprise me
> 
> ron paul want to go back to the gold standard, not some fairy tail dreamer $#@!


A gold standard would provide some temporal integrity during the transition to the resource based economic model, but it won't stop the march of technological employment toward demand for this emerging economic paradigm. 

The programming for the system of strategic design would be open source, meaning anyone can access it.  If some one or some group attempts to conspire to subvert the system to distort the parameters of resource accounting and dynamic equilibrium, it would be transparent and assertive action taken to prevent it from occurring wouldn't be stifled.



> That's a load of mumbojumbo that means nothing. What's "resource accounting"? 
> Someone has to calculate how and what shall be produced right? How can you not need a central government for that in the absence of money?
> How can you possibly maintain centrally governed dynamic equilibrium without causing shortages or excess?


Just like we have machines today that monitor the weather across the globe in real time, we can install machines across the planet than track the resources across the globe in real time.  With this accurate real time resource accounting, we can design strategic access based upon time utility without the shortages and excesses that result from a need to profit monetarily.



> Ron Paul has nothing whatsoever to do with your central planned socialist dystopia. Ron Paul advocates freedom, you do the exact opposite.
> I'm willing to bet that you'll feel pretty embarassed when you realise your centrally planned wonderwork is actually nothing more than shamanism.


Ron Paul is a politician and a product of the culture.  He may yet come to understand that individuals have more freedom in a society where they aren't forced to engage in a system of monetary exchange to prove their right to live to those with the most political and monetary influence.

----------


## Travlyr

> can't these guys just be banned, it pretty clear they have an agenda and have nothing to do with ron paul


And that agenda is to derail Ron Paul's message.

----------


## steve005

> And that agenda is to derail Ron Paul's message.


I agree. thats pretty insulting jim, you think we'd really fall for that crap? the venus project is being funded by the big banks, they are creating a controlled oposition

----------


## Diurdi

> Just like we have machines today that monitor the weather across the globe in real time, we can install machines across the planet than track the resources across the globe in real time.  With this accurate real time resource accounting, we can design strategic access based upon time utility without the shortages and excesses that result from a need to profit monetarily.


Now I know TZM people think a computer is going to calculate how to allocate the resources. The computer would have to know everything in the world that humans currently know, that means all personal preferances, all current resources, ongoing projects, available production capacity and so forth, it could only ever equal what the free market would.

Now how the hell do you create such a computer in the first place? Secondly, the fact that resources are scarce means that the computer couldn't fill all wants of people. It would have to calculate which needs to satisfy and which not to, almost like what money does today without the need of an omnipotent computer. Thirdly, if there is no incentive to actually improve production or innovate new products - how can society ever progress?




> Ron Paul is a politician and a product of the culture. He may yet come to understand that individuals have more freedom in a society where they aren't forced to engage in a system of monetary exchange to prove their right to live to those with the most political and monetary influence.


_"Some may object that man is not really free because he must obey natural laws. To say that man is not free because he is not able to do anything he may possibly desire, however, confuses freedom and power. It is clearly absurd to employ as a definition of "freedom" the power of an entity to perform an impossible action, to violate its nature."_ -Murray Rothbard

Monetary exchange is the most natural thing that exists, it will always exist where there is freedom.

Also, what is TZM planning to do with people who don't want to join your socialist movement and instead wish to utilize their property outside of your movement?

----------


## Original_Intent

> Jim, 
> 
> Literally, every sentence you write is a fallacy large enough to write a book on.


Yep. But rather than write a book let's just say - history has shown that the more you mess with "the invisible hand" the more you screw up the economy and the less prodcutive people are and the standard of living drops. Sometimes the effect is delayed, but it is inevitable and always happens. And what Jim proposes is the ultimate expression of interference witht he invisible hand, disguised as trying to faciilitate the invisible hand.

The invisible hand does not need your help! Trying to help having the hubrist to think that you, or a panel of experts, have the capacity to help is the root of most of the problems in the world today!

----------


## Jim Casey

> Jim, 
> 
> Literally, every sentence you write is a fallacy large enough to write a book on.


Many books were written by esteemed members of the scientific establishment about the purported fallacy of building a flying machine, yet the Wright brothers managed to disprove every one of those books without even needing to be aware of them.



> Indeed. The guy is a machine of ignoring logic and repeating his message.


I'm glad you can appreciate the mechanical consistency of my linguistic proficiency. 



> And that agenda is to derail Ron Paul's message.


I'm all on board the freedom train, and I realize that Ron Paul's message is specifically designed for political maneuverability.  Eventually demand for the resource based economy will expand to the point where politicians and businessmen won't be able to so casually dismiss the concept.



> I agree. thats pretty insulting jim, you think we'd really fall for that crap? the venus project is being funded by the big banks, they are creating a controlled oposition


What specific big banks do you believe are funding TVP and what evidence do you have to support this assertion?  Fresco has been in business for a long time. The controlled opposition argument is just as much an excuse for not looking deeper into the resource based economic model as is the against human nature argument, the needs unlimited resources argument, and the free market solves everything argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacque_..._Venus_Project 





> Yep. But rather than write a book let's just say - history has shown that the more you mess with "the invisible hand" the more you screw up the economy and the less prodcutive people are and the standard of living drops. Sometimes the effect is delayed, but it is inevitable and always happens. And what Jim proposes is the ultimate expression of interference witht he invisible hand, disguised as trying to faciilitate the invisible hand.
> 
> The invisible hand does not need your help! Trying to help having the hubrist to think that you, or a panel of experts, have the capacity to help is the root of most of the problems in the world today!


The notion of the divine invisible hand was developed alongside with the expendable race of laborers notion described by Adam Smith.  These notions won't be considered valid after technological employment has left enough people disenfranchised with the monetary system to the point where they've become far more willing to work toward the development of a society operating within the resource based economic model.





> Now I know TZM people think a computer is going to calculate how to allocate the resources. The computer would have to know everything in the world that humans currently know, that means all personal preferances, all current resources, ongoing projects, available production capacity and so forth, it could only ever equal what the free market would.


Automation of resource allocation decision making would allow far more access abundance to far more people than is possible within the free market.  In the free market, your ability to access resources is limited entirely by your ability to obtain the purchasing power required to pay the price tag on those resources.  With time-utility access, we're not hindered by bargaining by those with the most financial influence to relinquish their claim on resources.



> Now how the hell do you create such a computer in the first place? Secondly, the fact that resources are scarce means that the computer couldn't fill all wants of people. It would have to calculate which needs to satisfy and which not to, almost like what money does today without the need of an omnipotent computer. Thirdly, if there is no incentive to actually improve production or innovate new products - how can society ever progress?


Most money today does require computers, since the vast majority of money in existence is in digital format.  The wants of all people are entirely finite and limited to their frame of reference.  Consider that an eskimo doesn't want an air conditioner because he has no frame of reference for one.  What keeps the collapsing money based economy society going these days is the ability to fabricate new demands to keep the money shuffling around.  This is why so many companies now spend more on advertising than on the products themselves.

The profit motive only creates the incentive to produce what is most profitable.  If it is more profitable to make a product that requires service maintenance rather than a durable product, the market chooses the former.  Progress towards more profitable goods and services does not equate to progress towards greater efficiency, durability, or utility.



> _"Some may object that man is not really free because he must obey natural laws. To say that man is not free because he is not able to do anything he may possibly desire, however, confuses freedom and power. It is clearly absurd to employ as a definition of "freedom" the power of an entity to perform an impossible action, to violate its nature."_ -Murray Rothbard
> 
> Monetary exchange is the most natural thing that exists, it will always exist where there is freedom.
> 
> Also, what is TZM planning to do with people who don't want to join your socialist movement and instead wish to utilize their property outside of your movement?


Monetary exchange is a design to facilitate trade.  Trade is a design for property accumulation.  Property emerged as the result of fear of scarcity and presupposition of noncooperation.  There is nothing intrinsically natural or free about money.

When people have the freedom to access resources without the requirement of obtaining the level of purchasing power required to pay the price tag on those resources forcibly imposed by those who lay claim to those resources as property, there is absolutely no need to use money.  Our society can outgrow the need for money and live with greater freedom as a result.  Our survival needs are natural, our monetary associations to resources required for survival are artificial.

Those who refuse to cooperate with the resource based economic model are simply lacking the necessary information required for them to understand the value of the conclusions reached by this paradigm.  It is our job to provide them with that information.

----------


## Travlyr

I'm not really wanting to see you banned from these forums, Jim. 

I doubt you are increasing your cult following from members and readers of this forum because we have the truth on our side and we effectively debunk your silly nonsense on every thread.

It is just that you favor violence... we favor peace. That sucks in itself.

----------


## Diurdi

Your $#@! just keeps coming back to "If you let the omnipotent computer (that doesn't exist and cannot be developed in any sort of near time-frame) decide what to do, we will have resources for everyone's needs" - ofcourse some authority gets to decide what the needs are, because human nature (greed) causes most of us to always want to improve out position, so just getting bread and water is not going to keep people happy. It's not a good life to simply have the survival needs fulfilled not be free to chase any other goals.

_"When people have the freedom to access resource without the requirement of obtaining the level of purchasing power required to pay the price tag on those resouces..."_ you will run out of resources. Simple as that. Purchasing power is the result of earlier labour which allow the person to utilize the fruits of his labour as he wishes.

I really hope one day you realise the insanity of a resource based economy....
Because it is truly an enemy of freedom.

----------


## Jim Casey

> I'm not really wanting to see you banned from these forums, Jim. 
> 
> I doubt you are increasing your cult following from members and readers of this forum because we have the truth on our side and we effectively debunk your silly nonsense on every thread.
> 
> It is just that you favor violence... we favor peace. That sucks in itself.


I do favor peace, yet I'm also aware that there are certain conditions that need to be met for peace to be sustained.  What is considered to be true changes with increased knowledge based upon testing believed truths, thus is the scientific method. 



> Your $#@! just keeps coming back to "If you let the omnipotent computer (that doesn't exist and cannot be developed in any sort of near time-frame) decide what to do, we will have resources for everyone's needs" - ofcourse some authority gets to decide what the needs are, because human nature (greed) causes most of us to always want to improve out position, so just getting bread and water is not going to keep people happy. It's not a good life to simply have the survival needs and not be able to chase anything more.
> 
> _"When people have the freedom to access resource without the requirement of obtaining the level of purchasing power required to pay the price tag on those resouces..."_ you will run out of resources. Simple as that. Purchasing power is the result of earlier labour which allow the person to utilize the fruits of his labour as he wishes.
> 
> I really hope one day you realise the insanity of a resource based economy....
> Because it is truly an enemy of freedom.


The computer is simply a tool designed to automate decision making, just like the computer in your car automates decision making such as adding more coolant when the engine is heating up.   You only run out of coolant if you have insufficient levels of coolant to cool down the engine. 

The fruit of your labor is nothing more than the fruit of the earth.  The potential for greater human freedom will manifest with the rendering of money as obsolete.

Just because we don't have to chase the accumulation of purchasing power anymore doesn't mean we'll stop chasing the accumulation of understanding.  The greatest innovators in history were not motivated by profit.

----------


## Travlyr

> I do favor peace, yet I'm also aware that there are certain conditions that need to be met for peace to be sustained.  What is considered to be true changes with increased knowledge based upon testing believed truths, thus is the scientific method.


You claim to favor peace while promoting enslavement.  
Your position is contradictory. 

Your inability to understand what people on these forums are saying to you is sad. I sincerely hope you take some time to step-back from your aggressive agenda long enough to seek knowledge. Knowledge is power ... TZM is doomed.

----------


## steve005

> The computer is simply a tool designed to automate decision making, just like the computer in your car automates decision making such as adding more coolant when the engine is heating up. You only run out of coolant if you have insufficient levels of coolant


and let me guess, god is making the computer and writing the software?, and deciding who needs what, where and how much?




> The fruit of your labor is nothing more than the fruit of the earth. The potential for greater human freedom will manifest with the rendering of money as obsolete


how? you make no sense at all

I do however agree with what you want, the native americans did something similar, except no central computer making decesions, they gifted locally and bartered regionally. BUT IT WAS COMPLETELY VOLUNTARY!

----------


## Diurdi

He doesn't even understand the fact that if you drop a group of people in isolation on some desert island, eventually they will form some kind of monetary system. It's the inevitable result of trade. Just because fiat currencies are bad doesn't mean using a medium of exchange or trade is bad. He tries to use fancy words to guise his message of drivel into something intellectual. I don't really get how people time after time fall for these tricks.

The underlying theory still says that a _magical computer_ will know how to use resources in _your_ best interests. No one has any clue how this computer can ever be developed, the creators of this "theory" have no idea how this computer should be programmed because they don't understand anything about production or economics and they assume people will not resist this kind of obvious enslavement.

I'm really saddened that he had to ruin a relatively interest thread about supposed fallacies of austrian economics and keynsianism.
For your own sake I suggest you read some criticism on TZM and have a look at it from an objective angle. It's the best advice I can give you.

----------


## low preference guy

it's about time people stop feeding the troll

----------


## Travlyr

> it's about time people stop feeding the troll


Unfortunately, that never happens. It would be better if Jim just took some time away from posting about TZM on the forums and come back when he has something intelligent to add.

----------


## Jim Casey

> You claim to favor peace while promoting enslavement.  
> Your position is contradictory. 
> 
> Your inability to understand what people on these forums are saying to you is sad. I sincerely hope you take some time to step-back from your aggressive agenda long enough to seek knowledge. Knowledge is power ... TZM is doomed.


I value freeing man from enslavement to money.  I intend to gain understanding of what knowledge is holding people back from embracing the resource based economic model and providing them with the information they need to change how they think and feel about it so that they decide to cease their opposition. 



> and let me guess, god is making the computer and writing the software?, and deciding who needs what, where and how much?
> 
> 
> 
> how? you make no sense at all
> 
> I do however agree with what you want, the native americans did something similar, except no central computer making decesions, they gifted locally and bartered regionally. BUT IT WAS COMPLETELY VOLUNTARY!


During the transition, we'll be working within the monetary system to develop the societal architecture necessary to use the technology available to render money obsolete. 



> He doesn't even understand the fact that if you drop a group of people in isolation on some desert island, eventually they will form some kind of monetary system. It's the inevitable result of trade. Just because fiat currencies are bad doesn't mean using a medium of exchange or trade is bad. He tries to use fancy words to guise his message of drivel into something intellectual. I don't really get how people time after time fall for these tricks.
> 
> The underlying theory still says that a _magical computer_ will know how to use resources in _your_ best interests. No one has any clue how this computer can ever be developed, the creators of this "theory" have no idea how this computer should be programmed because they don't understand anything about production or economics and they assume people will not resist this kind of obvious enslavement.
> 
> I'm really saddened that he had to ruin a relatively interest thread about supposed fallacies of austrian economics and keynsianism.
> For your own sake I suggest you read some criticism on TZM and have a look at it from an objective angle. It's the best advice I can give you.


The intent of this thread, according to the title, is emergent economic understanding.  I contribute by bringing the understanding that I have gained in this new age.



> it's about time people stop feeding the troll


It is mutually beneficial for us all to share our economic understanding in this new age to bring about a more universal understanding rather than simply an understanding of positions asserted in a manner that is not perceived as trolling. 



> Unfortunately, that never happens. It would be better if Jim just took some time away from posting about TZM on the forums and come back when he has something intelligent to add.


What will really be keeping me away from the forums is a need to replenish my psychological resources because I don't want criticisms of my intelligence to result in behavior that might be considered less than peaceful.  I do believe I mentioned before in another thread that repeat violent offenders do cite "lack of respect" as a justification, and I do prefer peace.

----------


## Sola_Fide

Free toasters for everyone!

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Free toasters for everyone!


And jet skis!!!

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> What you're essentially saying is that you don't need to understand something in order to dismiss it.


No, what I'm saying is that it's not as hard to understand as you think.  Getting technical with it would be a waste of time for people like me.  Other people, such as Ron Paul et al. choose to delve deeper into it.  I know enough about the Keynesian system to know that it's inflationary and can't last.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> The Venus Project is based entirely upon strategic design for accessing finite resources.  Relating it to Soviets is a knee-jerk reaction based upon surface level associations, and associations to pink ponies and flowers are simply excuses not to look further into the resource based economic model.
> 
> The resource based economic model isn't about making money illegal.  It is about designing a system of strategic access that renders the use of money obsolete, just like domestication of animals made hunting obsolete.
> 
> Eventually, capitalism will collapse from its own greed.  Technological unemployment is something too many tend to dismiss.  
> 
> Once again, the resource based economic model isn't simply throwing money out of the equation.  It is using resources to design a system of strategic access that renders money obsolete.  Technological unemployment is already taking us in that direction.  Human productivity is simply not going to compete with automated productivity in a monetary system, and newly devised jobs and other schemes to keep the system of monetary exchange going also will not be able to compete with a system of strategic access designed to maintain dynamic equilibrium of accounted resources when the proper steps are followed of going from a growth state economy to a steady state economy, from a system of competition to a system of collaboration, from a dispersed system to a planned system, to replacing human labor with automation, and then yes, finally, from a system of property to a system of access.
> 
> We did once need money for our society to survive and prosper, just like we once needed to hunt and gather for our society to survive and prosper, but once societal updates are made, previously necessary behaviors are rendered obsolete.  This is the emergent nature of mankind.


How would you pay people to put a roof on your house?  How about fix your car?  Would you give them some of your resources?  Money is the common denominator that allows everyone to accept it as an exchange for whatever they want.  If people could have everything, then who would build the houses?  Why would they be motivated to do a good job?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Many books were written by esteemed members of the scientific establishment about the purported fallacy of building a flying machine, yet the Wright brothers managed to disprove every one of those books without even needing to be aware of them.
> 
> I'm glad you can appreciate the mechanical consistency of my linguistic proficiency. 
> 
> I'm all on board the freedom train, and I realize that Ron Paul's message is specifically designed for political maneuverability.  Eventually demand for the resource based economy will expand to the point where politicians and businessmen won't be able to so casually dismiss the concept.
> 
> What specific big banks do you believe are funding TVP and what evidence do you have to support this assertion?  Fresco has been in business for a long time. The controlled opposition argument is just as much an excuse for not looking deeper into the resource based economic model as is the against human nature argument, the needs unlimited resources argument, and the free market solves everything argument.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacque_..._Venus_Project 
> ...


The monetary system EVOLVED because people needed and wanted a common denominator.  It was brought about because people couldn't agree on value and wanted an easy way to trade.  To suggest that it can evolve backward to the point where people will actually be demanding to get off of the money system is absurd.   Even if your system magically poofed into existence tomorrow, people would still tend to start using money because it's convenient and it works.

----------


## BrendenR

The money system is voluntary.

All transactions benefit both individuals, otherwise they would not do the voluntary trade. This is called the invisible hand.

You are free to stop using money at any point, you will quickly find that trading with people, as previously stated is beneficial. You will further find that trading resources is hard, and that if only you had a common resource to trade, it would make things easy. You'll find a common resource to trade, which benefits everyone, and then you'll call yourself a slave to the monetary system once again.

But no matter how many times and how forcefully you say it, money does nothing to enslave anyone, it is nothing but another resource, one that helps make more trading possible, which in turn by its very nature helps resources get to the people that need/desire them the most faster and more efficiently, thus making all our lives better.

This is like, economics 101, and you are failing the class Jim.

----------


## Diurdi

> This is like, economics 101, and you are failing the class Jim.


 And it's not something any evil overlords have convinced us to believe. You can witness it yourself, for example in the military during long training exercises, cigarettes commonly become a currency which is traded for goods like chocolate bars, other goodies that come with the daily food or even services like fetching food for you. Even people who don't smoke will accept them because they know their smoking buddies will trade goods or services for the smokes. It helps them evaluate different goods and services.

----------


## Warrior_of_Freedom

Money doesn't produce goods, money is a intermediary common commodity used to trade. If we reject the commodity the uber rich are destroying, then we are free, but if we cling onto it as if it's the only way for us to trade goods and services, then we are slaves to their monetary power. I.E instead of me giving you monopoly dollars to go to the supermarket to buy food, I can give you food for painting my house, or whatever.

The only people that have something to lose are the ones with large investments and that are hoarding all of the money.

----------


## Seraphim

Too much rep given today...otherwise I'd rep you X 5!




> Money doesn't produce goods, money is a intermediary common commodity used to trade. If we reject the commodity the uber rich are destroying, then we are free, but if we cling onto it as if it's the only way for us to trade goods and services, then we are slaves to their monetary power. I.E instead of me giving you monopoly dollars to go to the supermarket to buy food, I can give you food for painting my house, or whatever.
> 
> The only people that have something to lose are the ones with large investments and that are hoarding all of the money.

----------


## Danke

> 


Why are those gals wearing supplemental flotation devices?

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Why are those gals wearing supplemental flotation devices?


Because *everything* is free in abundance, in Venus Land!

----------


## BrendenR

> Money doesn't produce goods, money is a intermediary common commodity used to trade. If we reject the commodity the uber rich are destroying, then we are free, but if we cling onto it as if it's the only way for us to trade goods and services, then we are slaves to their monetary power. I.E instead of me giving you monopoly dollars to go to the supermarket to buy food, I can give you food for painting my house, or whatever.
> 
> The only people that have something to lose are the ones with large investments and that are hoarding all of the money.


Money doesn't have to be dollars. I could be nuggets of gold. Or it could be silver coins. The point I want to make is that you can do exactly what you want, just use an alternate money to dollars. Trading goods is fine, but not manageable on a large scale. This is why Ron talks about competing currencies. It would allow those who so choose to get out from under thumb of the dollar lords.

It is not _money_ that is bad, it is dollars.

----------


## Hotchney

*Money is simply a good.* End of story. This really isn't complicated. You don't need to twist into any contortions over its definition. Money is not inherently good or evil but fraud is evil - that's what fiat money is.

----------


## Travlyr

> What will really be keeping me away from the forums is a need to replenish my psychological resources because I don't want criticisms of my intelligence to result in behavior that might be considered less than peaceful.  I do believe I mentioned before in another thread that repeat violent offenders do cite "lack of respect" as a justification, and I do prefer peace.


I'm not saying that you are not intelligent. I'm saying that we have looked at what you have presented from the Zeitgeist Movement, and their proposal is not about economics. Absence of money is not an economic topic. This thread is about economics. Quit derailing threads.

You personally bring intelligent debate to the process. The Zeitgeist propaganda is a planned society; start another thread if you want to talk about other societies.

We want honest economic monetary debate in this thread.

----------


## low preference guy

> *Money is simply a good.* End of story. This really isn't complicated. You don't need to twist into any contortions over its definition. Money is not inherently good or evil but fraud is evil - that's what fiat money is.


Or to be most precise, money is the most exchangeable commodity.

----------


## Travlyr

Industrial hemp is related to economics because the products produced from hemp are earth friendly, useful, and of high quality.

For example, hemp clothing will outlast cotton. Hemp car panels will withstand getting hit with hail, a post, or other "fender benders" without much damage at all. Hemp fiber mixed with concrete insulates walls while strengthening them simultaneously. Hemp plastic is compostable. Hemp has many other high quality qualities. Industrial hemp is illegal to grow.

My question is: Since cotton is an inferior cloth, wood pulp paper an inferior paper, steel panel is an inferior panel, petroleum plastic is an inferior plastic, etc., then is planned obsolescence a Keynesian theory?

----------


## couvi

The thread didn't really go where I had hoped, but I suppose the dissolution into these arguments was unavoidable.  These tedious and technical discussions, I think, are the beginning of the age of understanding in economics which I believe is upon us.  It is not the presence of economic discussion which is encouraging, but the prevalence of it amongst people such as ourselves.

Someone is right, and the times which will offer further proof are fast approaching.  Some of us believe the proof has already been offered; to the rest the obvious will one day be realized.  As the Austrians continue to grow in number, their explanations of the past and their inductions regarding the future will continue to be recorded and shared.  As Austrians continue to be shown to be consistently--although necessarily qualitatively--correct, the natural law which governs economics will slowly come to be more widely known.  As long as we don't suffer too large a subterfuge or some other profound disaster of forceful ignorance in our new information-sharing world, factual knowledge will prevail.

Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, Thomas Woods, and the rest of the great lovers of honest economics will be shown to be accurate in their worldly assessments (the growing number of hobbyist economists included).  Perhaps the evidence of their accuracy will not be enough to alter in our lifetime the intervening forces which quash healthy human existence; but their cries have been observed and ingrained in a way which has only recently become possible.  After all, I have a library of material available at my fingertips, and so do you--at a very low cost.  As far as human history is concerned, the popular accumulation of this widely available knowledge has only just begun.  

Even if true economics finds a vivid triumph in something such as a Ron Paul presidency and, in turn, a great education of the American populace, we may come again to find in years or decades that the destructive forces of economic interventionism regain influence.  But, still, if we maintain this world of easy information the future thieves will be more quickly discovered.  As I stated earlier, perhaps it will be centuries of cyclical freedom before the truth becomes prevalent enough to create lasting prosperity; but if we are able to continue in such rabid and rapid communication truth will win.

----------


## Jim Casey

> We want honest economic monetary debate in this thread.


Well then look at money honestly then.  Most of the money that exists today is in the form of digits in a computer, nothing more than data.  The most rapidly expanding global grassroots movement in the continuum of social change has honestly embraced the idea that we could economize the resources we use as a society without having to shuffle around this data that represents our individual purchasing power level. 

There's already a lot of people out there who realize that you're being dishonest when you say economics has to do with money.  A dispersed society rather than a planned society is more of an anti-economy than an economy.

We won't need anyone to build our houses or fix our cars.  We'll have machines do it.  People might not see that it is the honest solution, but it is.  We're not going to have better human home builders, car makers and fixers, or just about any other mechanical form of labor than we will with machines.

I know for sure that as little as 15 years ago, people would've said "you're not being honest" if I don't them people would be using computers as much as they are today.  The day is honestly not that far off when all the utilities that businesses and governments perform today for a price will be entirely automated and without price.  Perhaps then I may come back here and laugh about posts regarding "free toasters and jet skis", but only if access to those threads hasn't been removed to save face.

----------


## steve005

> but if we are able to continue in such rabid and rapid communication truth will win.


I agree, thanks for posting.

----------


## steve005

> A dispersed society rather than a planned society is more of an anti-economy than an economy.


I disagree, where is some facts to back up your claims? read the article "I Pencil", maybe it'll help you wake up from this crap


when? where? lol your dreaming, even if there were those machines(which don't exist and will never exist) who would build them? more machines? well who'll build them? etc etc, this is the stupidist idea I've ever heard and seen someone pushing this hard, you must either be a stake holder in taking our freedom or just a really lazy sheaple.



> We won't need anyone to build our houses or fix our cars. We'll have machines do it





> I know for sure that as little as 15 years ago, people would've said "you're not being honest" if I don't them people would be using computers as much as they are today.


lets really be honest here, would anyone really say your not being honest for making a prediction? that just doesnt make sense, your not being honest because your not addressing key points and your just pushing an agenda, we've already established that

----------


## Jim Casey

> I disagree, where is some facts to back up your claims? read the article "I Pencil", maybe it'll help you wake up from this crap
> 
> 
> when? where? lol your dreaming, even if there were those machines(which don't exist and will never exist) who would build them? more machines? well who'll build them? etc etc, this is the stupidist idea I've ever heard and seen someone pushing this hard, you must either be a stake holder in taking our freedom or just a really lazy sheaple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lets really be honest here, would anyone really say your not being honest for making a prediction? that just doesnt make sense, your not being honest because your not addressing key points and your just pushing an agenda, we've already established that


The resource based economy is an honest agenda.  These predictions are merely probabilities.  We'll come to learn what economic interventionism really refers to one day, and it won't be about shuffling around data that represents an individual's purchasing power.  It will be about changing our ideas about what kind of behavior is beneficial to society in terms of resource access.  Until then, expect more war and poverty.  I am aware of the possibility that many people won't survive through the transition, but those who will can begin to learn what a civilized humanity really is.  

Here's a video uploaded today by TVP's youtube channel.  I know most of you haven't watched it yet since there's only 1 dislike so far.  Go show this very old man some love.

----------


## BrendenR

> We won't need anyone to build our houses or fix our cars.  We'll have machines do it.


Who is going to build the machines that will build millions of homes? Other machines? Who is going to repair them, maintain them? Other machines? Who is going to repair the repair machines? Who is going to ship them to where they need to go? Who is going to repair the power lines that run the machines? Who is going to respond to the report of the broken power lines? Who is going to build the vehicle that gets the repair bot to the lines that need to be fixed? Who is going to build and maintain the road that allows the vehicle access? Who is going to design the shape of the roads? Who is going to decide the best location for the signs? Who is going to cut down the trees so the signs can be placed properly? Who is going to build the saw that cuts down the trees? Who is going to maintain the saw that cuts down the trees? Who is going to trim surrounding trees when the sign becomes obstructed?

This goes on and on and on and on. We're talking about potentially millions of jobs, many of which require human ability to properly address.

You're fantasy world could only exist in a world in which machines can replicate human action and knowledge, otherwise, there is always a human behind the scenes running the show. And that human isn't going to do all that work for free.

There are potentially _tens of thousands of types of jobs_ that need to be done. You'll need _tens of thousands of types of machines_.

Not only that, but after your machine world is complete, that world will require a whole new set of jobs that we cannot even fathom.

You cannot accept that your machine world is a fantasy and that humans will always act to acquire their desires, and that until we can create cyborgs to do all the "work" for us, humans will need to have an economy based on trade, property rights, with money to keep it all moving.

----------


## steve005

> Go show this very old man some love.


that old man is senile, he is saying how bad capitalism is, and how stress levels are up because of capitalism. We don't even have true capitalism, our markets are HEAVILY REGULATED! MORE GOVERNMENT REGULATION=MORE STRESS

----------


## CaptUSA

Technology causing unemployment?!

Read Bastiat.  That which is seen and that which is unseen.

Technology makes the things we want cheaper and easier.  Thereby freeing up capital to use in more productive ways.  Human wants are unlimited.  

If we didn't have trains, boats, and planes to carry goods, there'd be plenty of jobs for people to move goods by hand.  But, this is obviously inefficient.  How many jobs would we lose due to this inefficiency?  It's incalculable.  When you take this moronic argument in the other direction, the fallacy should become clear.

----------


## OrigSEOH

It's not just money to me anymore. It's god like humans setting atop a pyramid of power and authority saying, "Here you go little people live like this and only like this". 

Pay homage and bow to the oil gods, liability gods, food gods, etc... Everything is so centralized it's not even funny. Why in the world does the masses want to turn over their private property over to the likes of The Facebook or The Skype for them to manage their free speech and property. Never mind, a peer to peer communication network. . .we need a authority in the matters of communication.

All praise the authoritarian leadership that humans seem to require to exist.

----------


## Jim Casey

> Technology causing unemployment?!
> 
> Read Bastiat.  That which is seen and that which is unseen.
> 
> Technology makes the things we want cheaper and easier.  Thereby freeing up capital to use in more productive ways.  Human wants are unlimited.  
> 
> If we didn't have trains, boats, and planes to carry goods, there'd be plenty of jobs for people to move goods by hand.  But, this is obviously inefficient.  How many jobs would we lose due to this inefficiency?  It's incalculable.  When you take this moronic argument in the other direction, the fallacy should become clear.


Human wants are not unlimited.  They are finite and limited to frame of reference.  The reason why the 2nd highest paying career field is in marketing is because that is the job involved with creating wants.  The only career field that pays more is fund management, which is very much a career involved in generating conditions where wants can be more easily created.  Invest some funds in a corporation that puts another nation into debt with their resources as collateral and you've just created a lot of want there in the people of that country now want to pay their debt so they can keep their resources.

Wants have to be infinite in order for the market system to be sustained.  However, wants are not infinite, and that's why the market system is unsustainable.  Not only is a lot of money spent on manufacturing wants, but a lot of money is spent making sure that there aren't any ways those wants could be satiated without maximum profitability.

----------


## BrendenR

> Human wants are not unlimited.


Yes they are.

----------


## CaptUSA

Marketing doesn't "create" wants...  It exploits them.  Big difference.

Human wants are most certainly unlimited.  Even if I were somehow to give every person in the world, everything they ever wanted, they would soon want something else.  If you believe otherwise, then you have no understanding of human nature.  And since you deny human nature, it is little wonder that you cannot understand economics.  Economics, like meteorology, is a study of nature.  But, I guess if you want keep believing that the sun revolves around the earth or that rain falls up, we'll have a hard time arguing with you.

----------


## BrendenR

> But, I guess if you want keep believing that the sun revolves around the earth or that rain falls up, we'll have a hard time arguing with you convincing you of reality.


Fixed.

----------


## Jim Casey

If you don't understand that wants are limited to frame of reference, consider that if you ask an eskimo what he wants, he won't say he wants an air conditioner.

----------


## Diurdi

> If you don't understand that wants are limited to frame of reference, consider that if you ask an eskimo what he wants, he won't say he wants an air conditioner.


 No but it's never going to be enough. He'll want another igloo, or a bigger stack of fish etc etc (yes I know most eskimos aren't like that anymore).

And if we at some point manage to fulfill the materialistic needs by basicly having infinite amount of products, people will still want services that only other humans can provide. These kind of services are limited by default.

It is human nature to want to improve your current conditions, Greed is human nature.

----------


## BrendenR

> If you don't understand that wants are limited to frame of reference, consider that if you ask an eskimo what he wants, he won't say he wants an air conditioner.


Yes I understand that some people might not want or need some things.

Humans have desires.
Sweet things to eat.
Savory things to eat.
To be creative.
To have fun.
To experience new things.
To be social.
To be part of a group.
To be respected.
and so on and so forth.

These are not physical products, they are psychological. And they are limitless. And you're never going to fulfill them with machines.

----------


## Jim Casey

> No but it's never going to be enough. He'll want another igloo, or a bigger stack of fish etc etc (yes I know most eskimos aren't like that anymore).
> 
> And if we at some point manage to fulfill the materialistic needs by basicly having infinite amount of products, people will still want services that only other humans can provide. These kind of services are limited by default.
> 
> It is human nature to want to improve your current conditions, Greed is human nature.


It is our greed that will bring about the end of the monetary system and the rise of machines.  Technological unemployment is too profitable and too productive for measures to be taken to eliminate it in the long term, and the alternative of the resource based economy will become in too high demand for it to be prevented. 



> Yes I understand that some people might not want or need some things.
> 
> Humans have desires.
> Sweet things to eat.
> Savory things to eat.
> To be creative.
> To have fun.
> To experience new things.
> To be social.
> ...


Machines can free us of the need for monetary exchange to satisfy so many of our limited wants and also help arrange means of satisfying wants that machines alone cannot satisfy.  They can, and do today, help us find ways to satisfy our social wants which are really also limited to frame of reference.

The notion that our wants are limitless is really baseless.  Before the globe was entirely mapped, it could've been said that available land on earth was limitless.  Our wants may increase over time, but they also do decrease over time.  There are things I want now that I didn't want before, there are things I wanted before that I don't want now, and most likely in the future there are going to be things I want then that I never wanted before and things I want now that I won't want them.  

Wants are transitory, yet that doesn't make them limitless, nor does it mean that monetary exchange is the most sustainable or durably fulfilling means of satisfying wants.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> It is human nature to want to improve your current conditions, *Greed is human nature*.


 "Enlightened self-interest" is a more accurate, friendly way to put it.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *Wants are transitory, yet that doesn't make them limitless,*


 Yes it does.  Any person can _want_ anything(and often do)-it's human nature.  It may not be _rational_ to want anything/everything, but c'est la vie.

----------


## Jim Casey

> Yes it does.  Any person can _want_ anything(and often do)-it's human nature.  It may not be _rational_ to want anything/everything, but c'est la vie.


People can only want something they can conceive of.  That's why wants are limited to current frame of reference.  I didn't want to buy a Kinect until I was able to conceive of the fun I would have playing Dance Central and how cool it would be to take some of the moves I learned out to the club scene.  It was the marketers job to create that want.  Since making that kind of technology commercially accessible, even more wants have been satisfied with that device in ways that haven't been profitable monetarily except in terms of market research.


The millions who've bought this product didn't want it at all until they were able to conceive of it.  Wants are a finite level determined by range of frame of reference.

----------


## BrendenR

> People can only want something they can conceive of.  That's why wants are limited to current frame of reference.  I didn't want to buy a Kinect until I was able to conceive of the fun I would have playing Dance Central and how cool it would be to take some of the moves I learned out to the club scene.


No, you wanted to have fun, and you didn't buy the kinect until you were convinced it was fun. And if someone came out with 1000 new toys like the kinect that are actually fun, you will want them all, given you have time to use em.

The point is that machines are not going to come up with these new things. Humans are. And humans will want compensation for all their work, in the form of money.

If you remove money you are removing the exchange that happens in the economy. If you do that, the whole economy breaks down and we lose all the complex goods that come from the billions of exchanges that are made where money is one half of the trade.

What you fundamentally don't understand is that the reason you HAVE a kinect is because of free enterprise and a complex economy, of which money is a foundational principle.

----------


## Travlyr

In its simplest form money is food and water. A man catches some fish. A woman grows a garden of vegetables. The man trades some of his fish and the woman shares some of her salad for a nice romantic meal. The man decides to give the woman some imported Tulips to show his appreciation. The Tulips cost 2 fresh fish. Since it is tough to send fresh fish across the Atlantic Ocean, the man trades his two fish for a silver coin, and gives his silver coin to a fisherman in Holland for two fish to pay for the Tulips.

The highest quality money is the best to hold. Holding fish in the bank account doesn't work well because it starts stinking before long... as does corn, eggs, etc. Precious metal is a high quality money for the long term because it masters the following qualities:
DesirableDurableDivisiblePortableScarceTangible

Jim Casey's proposal of eliminating money from society ignores the the free will of people to eat and drink, as well as, the beauty of human interaction. The Zeitgeist Movement proposes that we live under the force of a smart computer to tell us what is best for us... and that our wants must be limited.

The current _Banking Industry_ is similar in that it too must force people to obey some really smart Ivy League people because they steal some of the fish and vegetables in order to afford to tell you how you should live your life. If you don't pay & obey, then you must go to jail or be killed.

Honest sound money in an environment of laissez-faire free-market capitalism allows people to interact with free will for the betterment of life... liberty, peace, and prosperity.

Honesty is the best policy.

----------


## Jim Casey

> What you fundamentally don't understand is that the reason you HAVE a kinect is because of free enterprise and a complex economy, of which money is a foundational principle.


No I have one because the technology was developed.  I would likely have access to better technology if access wasn't restricted to monetary exchange.

Indeed I did want to have fun, and still do, yet what kind of tangible things I want access to as part of my demand for fun is entirely limited to frame of reference.  Also, my want for fun is entirely limited to my frame of reference for what fun is.

----------


## CaptUSA

Wow, Jim, you really don't get it.  Part of our nature is that wants are unlimited. People will always want something that they don't have.  So unless every person on the planet can have every object or service that can be conceived, they will want something.  An eskimo doesn't want an air conditioner because he has cool air.  That want has been satisfied.  But you will NEVER be able to satisfy every want of every person.  Even if you could, they'd want something else.

I can't believe this has to be explained.  This seems so elementary.  You have to do a little thinking about how nature operates.

----------


## ClayTrainor



----------


## CaptUSA

Ok, maybe this will enlighten you in terms you can grasp:

Every time you satisfy a want, your frame of reference changes.  So if your frame of reference keeps changing, so do your wants.  Thus, the limitless cycle.

Does that help?

----------


## Travlyr

> 


lulz... Jim Casey is determined to derail any honest discussion on economic debate on this forum.

This is a good thread title, so rather than ban him... let's just show the world how delusional it is to believe that ANY group of elite or smart machines are better at running our lives than we are for ourselves.

Onward and Forward!

----------


## Jim Casey

> Wow, Jim, you really don't get it.  Part of our nature is that wants are unlimited. People will always want something that they don't have.  So unless every person on the planet can have every object or service that can be conceived, they will want something.  An eskimo doesn't want an air conditioner because he has cool air.  That want has been satisfied.  But you will NEVER be able to satisfy every want of every person.  Even if you could, they'd want something else.
> 
> I can't believe this has to be explained.  This seems so elementary.  You have to do a little thinking about how nature operates.


Just because new wants emerge after old wants are satisfied does not mean that wants are infinite.  Wants are indeed still limited to frame of reference.



> lulz... Jim Casey is determined to derail any honest discussion on economic debate on this forum.
> 
> This is a good thread title, so rather than ban him... let's just show the world how delusional it is to believe that ANY group of elite or smart machines are better at running our lives than we are for ourselves.
> 
> Onward and Forward!


I never once said that I believed elite groups or smart machines to be better at running our lives.  It is dishonest of you to say so.  It is an attempt to derail my train of thought regarding economic issues in order to frame it in a black or white, good or evil, one way or another context.

----------


## steve005

> I never once said that I believed elite groups or smart machines to be better at running our lives. It is dishonest of you to say so


You're ideas speak for themselves. I think you are the one being dishonest. If it weren't smart machines or elite groups then what is it Jim? please explain

----------


## Jim Casey

> You're ideas speak for themselves. I think you are the one being dishonest. If it weren't smart machines or elite groups then what is it Jim? please explain


Everyone still has freedom to run their own lives.  Automating processes that currently involve monetary exchange doesn't change that any more than automating the process of measuring how high an airplane is in the sky.  The designers of the airplane that installed computer sensors that accurately measure distance from the ground were never an elite group running the lives of pilots.

It would probably be easier for a 10 year old to figure this out than a 40 year old, since children haven't tied as much of what they identify as autonomy and honesty with their perceptions about money and economy.  They're more honest about learning, and don't jump to associate life without money with totalitarian regimes.

----------


## steve005

> Automating processes that currently involve monetary exchange doesn't change that any more than automating the process of measuring how high an airplane is in the sky



(sorry for "feeding the troll") so you're saying we well automate inventions? Because obviously the "proccess" of measuring how high an airplane is in the sky was the result of one or more inventions. lol so what are you really saying? the stuff about the elite group running the pilots lost me, make some damn sense man

----------


## Jim Casey

> (sorry for "feeding the troll") so you're saying we well automate inventions? Because obviously the "proccess" of measuring how high an airplane is in the sky was the result of one or more inventions. lol so what are you really saying? the stuff about the elite group running the pilots lost me, make some damn sense man


We can automate the process of accessing resources to develop and apply inventions, rather than limit the access by level of purchasing power.

The analogy is not too difficult to understand.  Technicians developed better means of measuring altitude of airplanes that once had to be gaged by pilots' perceptions.  The technicians who developed these improvements were not considered an elite group taking control of the lives of pilots or airplane passengers.

When the governmental and distributive processes that are today gaged by politicians' and businessmens' perceptions are automated, the technicians that developed these improvements won't be considered an elite group taking control of the lives of politicians and businessmen.

----------


## steve005

> the technicians that developed these improvements won't be considered an elite group taking control of the lives of politicians and businessmen



Are these "improvements" already developed? if not you're basically saying; "when we invent a godlike machine, that can make our decisions for us better then we can for ourselves, We'll have a utopia" correct?

----------


## steve005

I'm not a theist but I do believe there are many truths in the bible, here is a great quote that I think goes great with this thread(I believe "heavenly father" and "lord" refer to "mother nature".);




> "Due to the spell of illusion, people think that the problems of life revolve around eating nicely, sleeping comfortably, protecting one's interests from all challengers, and of course, a good sex life. But vedic literatures inform us that these things are provided by nature withour any indeavor. Similarly, jesus christ said; take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than eating, and the body than clothing? Behold the fowls of the air; for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly father feedeth them... And consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin... but even soloman in all his glory was not arrayed like oneof these.." * The real problem of human life is to stop the suffering of material life, of birth and death, by surrendering to the lord*"

----------


## BrendenR

> No I have one because the technology was developed.  I would likely have access to better technology if access wasn't restricted to monetary exchange.


Jim, I'm telling you that you fundamentally do not understand why you have a Kinect. So, you can go grab a book on free market economics, I'd recommend an Austrian economic text. Once you have read it, you will understand why you have a Kinect. You will understand all the processes and all the fundamental actions of humans that brought you that Kinect. Until then, you are simply talking about theories that have no foundation, because you fundamentally do not understand how technological development is enabled by a free economy which (I will repeat again since you seem to like to ignore it) money is required.

I'm telling you, it is a fact.

No Money = No Kinect.

It means no technology. It means no further innovations.

The economy we are talking about, that Austrian economics describes, is the one in the real world, that has been studied for hundreds of years, where much progress has been made. And you come here claiming that our fundamental assertions are wrong, but I'm here to tell you, hundreds of years of economic study and brilliant minds you will be well advised to read, will prove you wrong in the first few chapters.

And I'm done here, unless you show some semblance of acceptance that your fundamental assertions are incorrect.

----------


## Jim Casey

> Are these "improvements" already developed? if not you're basically saying; "when we invent a godlike machine, that can make our decisions for us better then we can for ourselves, We'll have a utopia" correct?


I never said we would have a utopia, that is your misunderstanding of my potion.  Our decisions can involve improving our machines that are no more or less godlike than the machines we already use today.  The decisions made by anyone who uses machines today has improved in quality based of the assistance of those machines.  How well this can be understood is limited by frame of reference of what machines provide us with.



> I'm not a theist but I do believe there are many truths in the bible, here is a great quote that I think goes great with this thread(I believe "heavenly father" and "lord" refer to "mother nature".);


Surrendering to the lord, or surrendering to the eternal dictatorship of nature involves understanding the precise laws of nature.  Since a book like the bible is written in a language that is entirely interpretable by each individual based upon their frame of reference, that code of laws is not as workable as are say the laws that govern mathematics, physics, or chemistry where the laws are written in language that crosses cultural boundaries by having objective references whose measurements mean the exact same thing to everyone who can read and write the language.  This is why these disciplines have helped more people construct technology that is applicable in more contexts, because their laws are easier to understand since the language isn't open in interpretation.



> Jim, I'm telling you that you fundamentally do not understand why you have a Kinect. So, you can go grab a book on free market economics, I'd recommend an Austrian economic text. Once you have read it, you will understand why you have a Kinect. You will understand all the processes and all the fundamental actions of humans that brought you that Kinect. Until then, you are simply talking about theories that have no foundation, because you fundamentally do not understand how technological development is enabled by a free economy which (I will repeat again since you seem to like to ignore it) money is required.
> 
> I'm telling you, it is a fact.
> 
> No Money = No Kinect.
> 
> It means no technology. It means no further innovations.
> 
> The economy we are talking about, that Austrian economics describes, is the one in the real world, that has been studied for hundreds of years, where much progress has been made. And you come here claiming that our fundamental assertions are wrong, but I'm here to tell you, hundreds of years of economic study and brilliant minds you will be well advised to read, will prove you wrong in the first few chapters.
> ...


Austrian economics may offer sound improvements in economic understanding in ways that are similar to the development of a mathematical model that involves negative numbers and digits of ten, yet understanding this new mathematical model doesn't mean that understanding even more advanced forms of mathematics can't take place.  

The range of wants allowed for in the Austrian model may be unlimited or infinite, yet that doesn't make their final quantity infinite or unlimited.  Two thirds of one whole may be represented by zero point six repeating infinitely in an unlimited quantity, yet that precise quantity is entirely finite and applicable without the need for interpretation as somehow unlimited or infinite, or that to deny that the quantity is infinite is to deny any applicability of the quantity as measurement. 

There were hundreds of years of brilliant minds that concluded that flying machines were impossible at one time, and the guys who proved otherwise didn't need to read all that they had to say to do so.  Understanding the fundamentals of bicycle mechanics was the foundation the Wright brothers had to develop the airplane, not an understanding of the obsolete doctrines that declared that an airplane could not be built.

One need not be an expert on Austrian economics to have a more sound grasp of the concept of economy than those who are experts.

----------


## ClayTrainor

You guys are wasting your time.  Jim Casey has demonstrated on many occasions that he has no interest in trying to understand what you're saying before he goes on to "refute" it.

----------

