Are Austrian Economists delusional?

[Danke]

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

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

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

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

 

[psi2941]

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

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

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

 

[robert68]

Originally Posted by Austrian Econ Disciple
...

Why isn't property a state privilege?

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

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

Can you give a "CONSISTENT DEFINITION OF PROPERTY"?

 

[theoakman]

your friend is right.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[WaltM]

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

I disagree

Can you give a "CONSISTENT DEFINITION OF PROPERTY"?

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

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

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

Property however, is always somewhat arbitrary.

 

[WaltM]

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

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

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

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

yep.

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

 

[hugolp]

I disagree




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

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

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

Property however, is always somewhat arbitrary.

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

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

 

[WaltM]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

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

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



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

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

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

 

[low preference guy]

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

Agree! WaltM is a nihilist!

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

 

[WaltM]

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

Yes, I forgot.

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

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

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

 

[WaltM]

Agree! WaltM is a nihilist!

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

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

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

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

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

 

[low preference guy]

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

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

 

[WaltM]

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

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

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

 

[robert68]

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

I disagree
.

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

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

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

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

Property however, is always somewhat arbitrary.

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

 

[WaltM]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[robert68]

...

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

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

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

You don’t leave me the impression we both mean the same thing by “ethics” or “ethical”, so I don’t know how to answer the question.

 

[WaltM]

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

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

That's FORCE against ME & my will.

This is especially more obvious for people who have no respect for intellectual property, they cannot say why physical property must be respected without using force.

You don’t leave me the impression we both mean the same thing by “ethics” or “ethical”, so I don’t know how to answer the question.

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

 

[robert68]

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

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

That's FORCE against ME & my will.

This is especially more obvious for people who have no respect for intellectual property, they cannot say why physical property must be respected without using force.

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

 

[WaltM]

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

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

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

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

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

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