"How An Economy Grows, and Why It Doesn't"
Shades of Edward Bernays! It's a fascinating mix of useful & twisted concepts, many misapplied.
The subtle but cascading misconceptions & arbitrary constraints get boring quickly ... and there's no mention of "return-on-coordination" whatsoever.
The most notable point is that Schiff seems fixated on static measures of value, and apparently unaware of any concept of dynamic value.
His perception of capital seems to be entirely static vs dynamic.
Seems a tremendous pity. Irwin, Peter Schiff's father, ended up in jail for tax evasion, but on many points he & Peter are so close to being in paradigm with modern, fiat monetary operations. It's a pity neither studied some form of complex systems - instead of only static accounting. That might have made all the difference in subtly improving their situational awareness of a very dynamic world.
49 comments:
"..but on many points he & Peter are so close to being in paradigm with modern, fiat monetary operations."
sorry roger but you've obviously never visited our channel. his twisted views are exactly why the US and it's economy is not benefiting from the enormous advantages a modern fiat system has to offer.
...;and the US is regressing towards 18th century wild west X feudalism because of the likes of people like him.
the above notwithstanding, the man is a complete f*ckwit, devoid of any economic knowledge, financial expertise or social etiquette - and is a matchstick man to boot, preying mostly on fellow Americans who are clueless in how to invest their money.
the man is so abhorrent and antithetical to human, societal and economic progression - we just had to develop a tailor made channel for him - to show people what the US was and can be again - and how people like him have in the interim turned it into the bedlam it is now.
don't take our word for it - visit our site and look at the hard evidence for yourself.
regards.
This book looks like it is based on gold standard thinking and we are not on the gold standard anymore.
rsp,
Roger thank´s for always interesting blog.I don´t know that Irving Schiff guy,but i sure i prefered to read the other excellent Michal Kalecki much more for sure it was at a higher level to put it mildly.And i read the comment above,and see he is related to that ignorant parrot Peter Schiff??Well i heard that guy talk a lot and a more stupid and irritating type i hardly seen.He advocate goldstandard and Ron Paul stupidities like abandon central banking etc.It definitly a moron,i can hardly get that such snaik oil seller,have anything in common with MMT!But thank´s and keep up the good work!
Where is the interpretive
documentation to back up the argument that Schiff's book is "a fascinating mix of useful & twisted concepts, many misapplied."?
Matt Franko:
Economic laws don't change when states impose a monopoly money.
Excuse, to make it clear what i mean with "He" is of course "Irving is related to Peter Schiff,"(not the commentor of course)! If i get it right Irving Schiff is Peters father i understand now!Well i don´t know the Irving guy but he seem to be in
to same fare out Austrian school nonscence just like Peter.But incase of Peter i seen he often even get his Hayek etc. wrong so maybee he talk in favor of MMT with out knowing it.He is totally out touch on basic economics .Use to predict hyperinflation and depression for each and evey year i noticed.
Major_Freedom.Don´t dicredite your self and defend that Peter Schiff snake oil seller and charlatan!He has nothing in common with your Austrian School more then use it to sell his products.He just use it to get some cred.He just use you!I read your comments and i can tell you that know more about Austrian economics then Peter Schiff for sure.Don´t be fooled by that man.He don´t anything about ABCT etc.he just take advantage of your school for personal benefit.
Anonymous @August 2, 2012 8:03 PM:
I am not discrediting myself. I am simply asking for interpretative documentation to back up Franko's argument.
You're kind of derailing things here.
Major,
The fact that this illustrated book does not contain any use of state currency by the characters in it makes it self evident that it is based on some type of exogenous 'money' system other than the type that we have been using in the US now for decades...
there is no 'interpretive' documentation required, just the book itself and eyeballs that can be recognizing a lack of use of state currency.
Looks to me that they are using fish.
You are over thinking all of this.
You distrust the government. OK I for one get that this is your position and I respect your POLITICAL position here.
Run for office on this simple platform and change the laws of the US to make the USD convertable into a certain amount of fish at the UST on demand then if you win.
Simple.
Dont try to paint government policy as illegitimate unless it is in accord with what you view as some sort of "natural" so-called "economic law" or something...
Stake out your political position and run on it...
Rsp,
Major,
For instance there was a US 'Silver Party" back in the 1800's:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Party
You could propose some other commodity or other commodities...
btw I personally think this type of system could run side by side of our current USD system if our morons in present govt didnt think that govt needs USD tax revenues to be able to spend USDs on it's provision...
You could have your system and we could have ours. Let them compete.
There is historic evidence of huge success of this type of hybrid system in the Roman Empire....
rsp,
Major,
Perhaps we should go to a monetary apartheid system????
I may be a "monetary segregationist" ;)
Consider that we may have a common enemy in the moron.
Eliminate the moron and many options that Roger often writes about here open up, which I would think would include the option of a hybrid monetary system (IT never before as inexpensive to mankind)... unless of course you are blinded by "metal love"...
rsp,
this major is asking for interpretive documentation for arguments against the ramblings of a person who is not an accredited economist but who wrote a book on the economy based on nothing but rhetoric, his own twisted logic and fantasies?
you need to be demoted from major to private and start all over again.
I agree with Matt view...
I think we can run currency competition system and let state currency be administered by... well, the state.
Only zealots would disagree with this because I'm sure the anti-government guys would not be against other institutions (like corporations) being able to issue their own money.
So let the state issue its own currency and tax/sanction on it (because you would not be obliged to use it to liquidate private debts).
Funny enough there are some nations which already have the legal structure to allow this (amongst other my own country, Spain). Just wonder why people is not taking advantage of it.
Gold-standard fascists are scared of something. So let currency freedom actually. And anti-public government are just idealists, a waste of time.
Lev,
I think Tom has made the point that in the US technically the states could do their own coinage or something...
Major,
Tell Peter Theil that instead of pissing his USD balances away by paying kids to drop out of college he should instead pay to have the kids drop in to UMKC for a REAL education into how monetary systems operate and help to wipe out the morons.
Once we get rid of the morons, it would probably be easier for you "freedom lovers" to just sort of "opt out" of the USD system to a great extent... Once it became widely revealed that the US govt does not "need" USD tax revenues to be able to provision itself....
Rsp,
This guy quit using money, & went back to barter. Yet his friends write about him to make .... money!
http://www.businessinsider.com/daniel-suelos-currency-free-lifestyle-2012-4#the-man-who-quit-money-was-written-by-suelos-long-time-friend-mark-sundreen-13
"The Man Who Quit Money" was written by Suelo's long-time friend Mark Sundreen.
and http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17762033
"He's not just sitting there on a hill becoming enlightened," Sundreen told the BBC. "He's really engaging with the world and he wants to get his message across. He doesn't imagine everyone living in a cave but he does imagine that money will become obsolete."
"Money will become obsolete" - it happened on Star Trek too! Efficiently distribute social credits, and you have essentially fiat currency. Was there ever a Star Trek episode on future Luddites still using their credits to hoard gold, as they zipped around the galaxy & through wormholes?
Given the diversity curve of human genetics, you can count on our long-tail always including some Austrian Economics, extreme Libertarian Luddites. That's our safety valve, in case we ever have to return to the stone age.
Let's stop arguing with the gold bugs. Like all bugs, there's no benefit to reducing them below negligible occurrence levels. That's simply part of real variance in complex systems.
Actually, the main thing that caught my eye in all of Schiff's ramblings was his opening line, about consuming what we produce. It's too bad he and Warren Mosler started in such fundamental agreement, then systematically went in opposite directions of logical operations vs random ideology.
It was fascinating to try to follow Schiff's train of thought. He was obviously smart & somewhat educated, but his comic made me think of schizophrenics or deranged people - drawing arbitrarily bizarre conclusions from diverse findings, and having no capability to summarize them into an organized whole. The inconsistencies in the comic book just keep adding up .. with no attempt at recursive tuning.
Yet he was motivated to doggedly pursue his disjointed mania, until the outcomes got him thrown in jail.
Human diversity really is amazing.
There is no limit in the US on how parties wish to eneter into contract or arrange exchange. The requirment is that all transactions that are taxable be reported on the proper forms and in a timely fashion in the official unit of account, the USD.
Barter clubs issue their own bater money for inside use and even denominate in USD and them "barter dollars"; casinos issue tokens, digital currencies are legally permitted, finance companies like GMAC finance the GM vehicles.
There is no free banking the US because banks cannot compete with the govt sponsored banking system with interbank settlement, LLR, and FDIC, not because it is not permitted.
There is no law against using "coins" of a fixed weight of PM either, or using gold coins from other countries. Some people actually use some such in their networks.
All these things already exist inside functioning networks.
I would not write off social credit. The idea was developed by Brit engineer C. H. Douglas (1924), and there are quite a few proponents of it around now in social credit political parties.
While John Maynard Keynes referred to Douglas as a “private, perhaps, but not a major in the brave army of heretics,[29] he did state that Douglas “is entitled to claim, as against some of his orthodox adversaries, that he at least has not been wholly oblivious of the outstanding problem of our economic system.”
— from the Wikipedia article link to above
Matt Franko:
Thank you for writing your reasons.
The fact that this illustrated book does not contain any use of state currency by the characters in it makes it self evident that it is based on some type of exogenous 'money' system other than the type that we have been using in the US now for decades...
So what? The US economy grew before 1971. The book talks about how economies grow, the necessities of how economies grow, not how economies with communist monetary systems grow.
And don't you mean endogenous money? Money that is coercively monopolize by the state is an exogenous money, namely, it is exogenous to private property and free trade. If there is no state monopolized money, then money would be endogenous.
there is no 'interpretive' documentation required, just the book itself and eyeballs that can be recognizing a lack of use of state currency.
What is the problem with not including state money? Economies don't start growing with state money, and they don't stop growing without state money.
I think the problem here is that you don't quite understand how economies can grow in general. You can't interpret economic concepts nor understand economic theory, unless there is already a state controlled money that serves as a basis. But this basis is not an objective one. It is a happenstance. A historical phenomena that could have been different, and could be different in the future.
Thus, how economies grow cannot possibly be narrowed to economies with state monopoly money. State monopolies in money are not necessary for economic growth.
You are over thinking all of this.
I don't think so. I think you are under-thinking this.
You distrust the government.
That has nothing to do with it. You're again derailing this into a political game. I am asking for you to back up your claim that the book is "a fascinating mix of useful & twisted concepts, many misapplied."
I have yet to see this statement being backed up by any interpretative documentation from the book.
OK I for one get that this is your position and I respect your POLITICAL position here.
I am not communicating a political position. I could be pro or anti central bank and my question would be equally relevant.
Run for office on this simple platform and change the laws of the US to make the USD convertable into a certain amount of fish at the UST on demand then if you win.
So you seem to WANT to make this a politics game then.
You completely evaded the context of economics and your accusation that the book is "a fascinating mix of useful & twisted concepts, many misapplied."
Which concepts are "twisted", and which concepts are "misapplied"? Please stop trying to infer motivation, and please start trying to be an honest debater.
Dont try to paint government policy as illegitimate unless it is in accord with what you view as some sort of "natural" so-called "economic law" or something...
Son't try to paint government policy as legitimate unless it is in accord with what you view as some sort of "historicism" or "democratic" inevitability or something.
Or, you know, you can simply answer my simple and direct question.
Rsp,
What does this "rsp" mean?
---------------
As of now Matt, your statement "a fascinating mix of useful & twisted concepts, many misapplied" is completely and unequivocally unbacked by any relation to the book itself. All you did was dismiss it because it doesn't contain state monopolized money, and so you as an MMTer do not know how to approach it. So you can only make unbacked accusations.
Really, how can you not see the low quality of your "assessment"? It's rather deplorable.
Matt Franko:
Perhaps we should go to a monetary apartheid system????
Perhaps we can read examples of how the book contains "twisted concepts", and how it contains "many misapplied"?
I am just interested in seeing this.
It shouldn't be this hard for you or Roger.
Matt Franko:
Sorry Matt, I accused you of making the claim that the book is "a fascinating mix of useful & twisted concepts, many misapplied".
It was Roger's post, not yours. I just assumed it was yours because of the way you jealously defended the post.
My apologies.
What I am saying is directed at Roger.
"It was fascinating to try to follow Schiff's train of thought. He was obviously smart & somewhat educated, but his comic made me think of schizophrenics or deranged people - drawing arbitrarily bizarre conclusions from diverse findings, and having no capability to summarize them into an organized whole. The inconsistencies in the comic book just keep adding up .. with no attempt at recursive tuning.
Yet he was motivated to doggedly pursue his disjointed mania, until the outcomes got him thrown in jail.
Human diversity really is amazing."
roger, one word sums your eloquent paragraph up: "conman".
Major,
"not how economies with communist monetary systems grow."
wrt "communism", I'm not the one proposing a view of a monetary system that is the same as the monetary view of Karl Marx, YOU ARE!
Marx's view was one that made all "money" as based on an exogenous commodity like gold (or silver)...
The monetary system I advocate for has nothing in common with Marx's communist view, YOUR'S DOES... you think "money" should be based on gold and SO DID MARX.
Lose your gold-love and you may be able to see this...
rsp
ie Respectfully submitted, Matt :)
According to what Tom says this statement is bullshit: "Economic laws don't change when states impose a monopoly money."
So, why are we discussing again? Gold fascists (only the state could enforce using a 'gold standard') or anti-government(society) idealists pointless discussions.
Start doing something and less crying about stuff in the internet. Is legal so why aren't you already doing something instead of trying to enforce other in your preferred form of monetary system?
We already have monetary freedom. If corporations and people (some say corporations are people but lol) decide to use state money (including banks) is not our fault.
Matt Franko:
"not how economies with communist monetary systems grow."
wrt "communism", I'm not the one proposing a view of a monetary system that is the same as the monetary view of Karl Marx, YOU ARE!
No, you are. State control over a means of production is a communist action. State control over money is therefore a communist institution.
I propose a free market in money, so I cannot be proposing any Marxist system.
At any rate, you're not addressing the main point I am making, and you are instead getting sidetracked on a tangent.
Marx's view was one that made all "money" as based on an exogenous commodity like gold (or silver)...
Marx's view to centralize banking in the hands of the state. It's plank 5 in the Communist Manifesto.
The monetary system I advocate for has nothing in common with Marx's communist view, YOUR'S DOES... you think "money" should be based on gold and SO DID MARX.
False. Your proposed monetary system sees money production in the hands of the state. That is communist.
Lose your gold-love and you may be able to see this...
I don't love gold. I love a free market in money.
ie Respectfully submitted, Matt :)
Does this mean if you don't write "rsp", it means you disrespectfully submitted it?
Leverage:
According to what Tom says this statement is bullshit: "Economic laws don't change when states impose a monopoly money."
Then what Tom says is bullshit, because that is a true statement.
So, why are we discussing again? Gold fascists (only the state could enforce using a 'gold standard') or anti-government(society) idealists pointless discussions.
What's the difference between gold money fascists and fiat money fascists? They're both state enforced.
Start doing something and less crying about stuff in the internet. Is legal so why aren't you already doing something instead of trying to enforce other in your preferred form of monetary system?
Stop crying and whining.
We already have monetary freedom.
False. We do not have monetary freedom. We are coerced into accepting US dollars because the state coerces us into paying them taxes in US dollars, even if I and others don't even trade in US dollars. We'll still have to pay the "US dollar equivalent."
If corporations and people (some say corporations are people but lol) decide to use state money (including banks) is not our fault.
It is the state's fault for initiating violence in such a way that Americans have to go out and accept US dollars, thus monetizing the US dollar as a medium of exchange coercively.
If you want to accept toilet paper in exchange for your labor or goods, then by all means, I won't have an issue with that. What I do have an issue with is when some people initiate threats of violence to force me to accept toilet paper in commerce because that's what the IRS demands, no matter what I accept in commerce. I can accept gold, silver, or privately issued toilet paper, and the IRS won't care. They'll still demand to be paid in US dollars
We do NOT have monetary freedom. We'll have monetary freedom as soon as the state ceases using coercion in compelling everyone to pay taxes in US dollars.
------------------
Imagine if Wal-Mart initiated violence, or threats of violence, against every American so that they will pay Wal-Mart 10% of their incomes in Wal-Mart coupons. Wal-Mart will calculate the Wal-Mart coupon equivalent for your income, even if your income is all in US dollars. If you then went out and sought Wal-Mart coupons, so as to avoid them throwing you in a cage, then you can't say you have monetary freedom.
It's the same thing with the state. It doesn't matter if they're majority elected. It's still coercive on the individual.
I'm still waiting for someone, anyone, to justify the argument that Schiff's book is "a fascinating mix of useful & twisted concepts, many misapplied."
None of you have done this. All I have seen is evasion.
Evasion does not constitute a valid justification.
I think I want to go back to arguing with FDO about semantics..... :p
@Major_Freedom
I have not yet been able to understand a *single* Roger post. Not sure if this is because I'm an idiot or because he is... maybe a combination of both.
Anyway, I clicked on the "return on coordination" link above. I've seen this phrase in multiple Roger posts, but never saw any explanation for what it is.
Here is one sentence from the description:
"Complex systems adapt by organizing increasingly agile exploration of options."
What does the world "agile" mean in this context? You could also use the word "cool" or "awesome" and it would convey the same info. This is just word salad.
The rest of the description is for more "decentralized decision making"... one of the main advantages of the *market*.
Roger,
In your evolutionary studies have you ever come across behavior in any other primate species (other than certain humans of course) that is equivalent to what Marx termed from the secular point of view "commodity fetishism" ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_fetishism
This would be interesting to know....
Rsp,
marris, just because you haven't heard of a whole swath of knowledge like biology, evolutionary theory theory and operations research, you think it is what exactly? Nono-existent. Nonsense. Ivory tower? The militaries of the world run on the basis of evolutionary theory and operations research, what the military does corporations follow because it works practically, like engineering.
The fact from what you said is that you don't have a clue about what Roger is talking about. Why not just say that.
Lets start with the assertion that fiat monetary systems are communist. Hooey. The fiat monetary system existed long before the idea of communism. The tally stick system is the best example.
Schiff states that the maximum amount of credit is the islands supply of fish. This is the prime reason why a commodity money system is not desirable. If you have something to sell and I want to buy it the transaction may not happen because theres no fish. It limits growth.
Consumer debt doesn't lower our standard of living. It rasises it. Lending isn't limited by savings. It is limited by the amount of real resources and willing borrowers.
In the comic government gives loans to freeloaders looking to vacation in the comic. Schiff seems to think that anyone who is not well of is that way becuase they are lazy and or stupid.
"We'll have monetary freedom as soon as the state ceases using coercion in compelling everyone to pay taxes in US dollars."
Sorry but what prevents you acquiring these US dollars at market prices to pay taxes and be done with it? This also would have an exchange rate effect on the valu of USD against your 'supposed' alternative currency (even if it's gold).
You can do it now, you can use euros and convert to USD to settle your tax obligations. No one is obliging you to hold USD assets at a point gun, that's ridiculous. Off course the state is able to write laws and say in which currency it will accept taxes, otherwise anyone could pay in 'funny bucks' (as Bob Roddis would say), what a joke. What sort of logic indicates this would be workable?
Maybe it's just you want to eliminate public governments altogether and live in an idealistic anarcho-capitalist world, but because that is not going to happen ever is a waste of time discussing along these lines.
P.S: I don't have to answer for R.E. claims, the question you are asking is one for him. I'm just following this offtopic conversation.
"What does the world "agile" mean in this context?"
Increasingly fast. Organism who don't increase their adaptive rate (how fast they evolve) just disappear.
Complex organisms 'adapt' by evolving in different patterns which 'invest' in social coordination of their individuals. That's because coordination amongst social species has the best 'rate of return' in adaptiveness for complex organisms (instead of, for example, evolution in fisiological features).
There is a feedback loop which "marginalizes" species (by increasing extinction) which evolve about individual fisiologic features against those which evolve about social coordination patterns.
The whole point (at least that's how I see it) of R.E. is that iwe are failing increasing rate of adaptation in this social coordination trends by (apparently) volitive actions (which is almost an unique human feature, at least to such degree), self limiting our own potential. And 'economics' in acting as one of those hard limiting factors.
Good summary, Leverage.
Unique among species, human beings can evolve themselves consciously and intentionally. Human consciousness is reflexive due advances in brain structure and function, and and also through the use of signs as symbols, i.e. nuanced language for communication of complex information.
Reflexivity means that human not only know, but they know that they know, and an important aspect of this knowledge is self-knowledge and species knowledge. This allows humans to reflect on experience.
Reflection on experience was Socrates' definition of philosophy, the mosts general knowledge from which all mor specialized knowledge arose.
The means that humans can raise their own consciousness. This is the aim of spirituality, the broad definition of which is unfolding greater inherent potential as a human being. It's tapping into potential that already exists. This is set forth in perennial wisdom.
Raising consciousness also expands the mind as the "container" of knowledge by increasing quality of cognitive functioning and even the order or level of functioning. We are beginning to understand this through cognitive science.
This allows humans to develop and deploy increasing powerful knowledge systems and to adjust them based on feedback. This is the cutting edge of all disciplines and their transdisciplinary relationships, e.g., in general systems theory.
The obstacles to this generally come from individual and social rigidity. Convention, including "the common sense view of the world" at any time, creates a drag on both individual initiative and also interpersonal cooperation and coordination.
Convention arises from cultural artifacts like custom and tradition, as well as established social hierarchies, as well as cultural institutions. Personal inflexibility arises from the long list of cognitive biases. Both individual and social rigidities are difficult to overcome to hysteresis and opposition of vested interests. This has resulted in periodic resets historically.
Individuals and social groups are capable of transcending these limitations and advancing. Those who do eventually replace those who do not. While evolution is not the zero sum game that Social Darwinians make it out to be, there are winners and losers depending on rate of adaptability. In complex social systems, especially, this is determined by return on coordination.
"Consumer debt doesn't lower our standard of living. It rasises it."
Not entirely true. See 2008.
you need some constraints on bank expansion of debt and a better balance between private debt and public 'debt'.
"The US economy grew before 1971."
The money supply increased hugely before 1971, both 'fiat' spending and bank credit.
When the US was created, the currency was established by the government. They said: this is money. Not that - this.
What does 2008 have to do with whether or not consumer credit raises peoples standard of living? If your implying it was the cause of the crisis I disagree. I think it is a symptom of a larger sickness. The public debt is too small/taxes too high and wages are too low.
I said "not entirely true".
The financial crisis wasn't (just) about a too small govt deficit/ too large current account deficit or stagnant wages. 'twas also about a grand fraudulent private credit ponzi scheme cannibalizing itself in the absence of any proper controls.
'justify the argument that Schiff's book is "a fascinating mix of useful & twisted concepts, many misapplied."'
What's the inverse of documenting?
Anyway, Schiff's comic book self-documents as an example of something that fails to logically documenting anything coherent.
It's like writing a math treatise stating sequentially that
1+1 = 3;
2+2 = 7;
3+3=5;
etc, etc
One scans the list, looking for any logical cipher key or pattern, but finds no pattern other than a predetermined belief better left to itself. Trying to defend an irrational belief with rational logic only exposes the blind ideology ... so it's better to just be honest about admitting it's a compulsion, not a rational decision.
@MattFranko
" have you ever come across behavior in any other primate species (other than certain humans of course) that is equivalent to what Marx termed from the secular point of view 'commodity fetishism'?"
Yes and yes. That's essentially what Adaptive Rate is all about.
Yes in that many species, from crows to rats to crustaceans hoard away shiny things, from glass beads to bottle caps & jewelry. The proposed reason's vary from the ridiculous to the sublime.
Even further yes - if you consider any given metabolite and/or "transition-state" as itself a commodity.
Once seen that way, every step in learned molecular, biochemical & cultural aggregates has passed a given stage of associative learning, by trial & error accumulation of positive feedback reactions that reinforce the "initially recognized" and then "expected" path to a worthwhile return. Think of all the variations of Pavlov's dog.
However, none of these learned associations have ever satisfied all of these three conditions simultaneously:
1) guarantee 100% association in any given context;
2) guarantee continued association across changing contexts;
3) guarantee optimal return in any or all contexts;
There isn't any known example of associative learning that can be proven to be the last. There are ALWAYS more options to explore.
It's the speed of transitioning between old & newly discovered, optional, associations that counts. That's what we call "adaptive rate."
We're in the middle of an adaptive-rate race. We've estimated it's been continuing on earth alone for at least 3.5 billion years ... and will go on an essentially unlimited time (as far as we know). The only thing we can count on is continued change .. and our ability to adapt to it (faster than others).
How quickly we explore our expanding "Options Space" is what will either keep us at the forefront of evolution on Earth, or relegate us to just another species that a better species stands upon.
Great explanation, Roger. I suggest making a post of it. More people read the posts than the comments, and this is too good to miss. Clear, concise and important. Vital, in fact, at this juncture.
Major Freedom: False. We do not have monetary freedom. We are coerced into accepting US dollars because the state coerces us into paying them taxes in US dollars, even if I and others don't even trade in US dollars. We'll still have to pay the "US dollar equivalent."
Well, at least you get to the heart of the matter. Taxes. Nobody coerces you to accept dollars though. If you know someone who does, please give me his address, so I can find him & he can coerce me.
Do you believe in private property?
If you do:
Well, there's this guy, Uncle Sam. He owns all the land from sea to shining sea. That's what the human race has agreed. (For simplicity, let me amalgamate Uncle Sam & his 50 tentacles, the states)
Uncle Sam charges people who stay in his house, 1 USA St, rent. It is payable in coupons he prints up & delivers to his favorite tenants, called dollars.
The simplest kind of rent Sam charges is property tax. He is a strange old coot, so he makes additional charges if you do things he considers nuisances, some sensible, some not so sensible: Sales taxes, income taxes, social security taxes (he considers working for a living or trading good stuff for coupons etc a nuisance, - very odd) etc.
You have a perfect major freedom, Major Freedom, to denounce your US citizenship, and leave the USA. Otherwise, you have accepted to play Uncle Sam's game by Uncle Sam's rules, including the rent, which is too damn high, true. True, some of the rules are bad, but we can work to change them - by revolution & a new Uncle if need be.
"He owns all the land from sea to shining sea"
I don't think that's entirely correct, technically.
In Hong Kong the governmnet does literally own the freehold on ALL the land, apart from I think the land under the central cathedral.
In Singapore the government owns something like 80% of the land freehold.
In US, the government doesn't own all the land, but has 'eminent domain' over the land, meaning that it can force land owners to sell their land to the government in return for compensation.
"He owns all the land from sea to shining sea"
I don't think that's entirely correct, technically.
No, it's right, especially for the use I meant it. There is no such thing allodial, absolute title to land held by private persons or institutions in the USA, or really anywhere else, as evinced by laws of eminent domain & property taxes. That's the kind of title & autarky that many like Major Freedom imagine they jest naturally have. (OK, I assume Major Freedom is not the pope or the Grand Master of the Knights of Malta) Something like a person of international law, like a state. The US in relations with other states certainly does "own all the land in the USA".
And while you may hold your freehold in Fee simple absolute, but that still means that you have been enfeoffed by the sovereign. E.g. "In English common law, the Crown has radical title or the allodium of all land in England, meaning that it is the ultimate "owner" of all land. However, the Crown can grant ownership in an abstract entity—called an estate in land—which is what is owned rather than the land it represents. The fee simple estate is also called "estate in fee simple" or "fee-simple title", and sometimes simply "freehold" in England and Wales."
> marris, just because you haven't heard of a whole swath of knowledge like biology, evolutionary theory theory and operations research, you think it is what exactly? Nono-existent. Nonsense. Ivory tower?
No dude, you don't get what I'm saying. I'm saying that I don't understand a *single* idea that Roger has posted. Like, I get that I may not understand the full weight of his arguments unless I understood bio AND evolutionary theory AND ops research AND ...
But my point is much simpler. Given even a tiny bit of knowledge in any of those ideas [say, wikipedia amounts], I still can't understood *a tiny bit* of what Roger writes. Nothing. The whole thing is a jumble.
> The fact from what you said is that you don't have a clue about what Roger is talking about. Why not just say that.
Yes! Exactly!
Roger, take notice.
Tom: > The fact from what you said is that you don't have a clue about what Roger is talking about. Why not just say that.
marris: "Yes! Exactly!"
I have to admit that I have been reading Roger for some time now, and it took me awhile to get it, too, and I am long way from getting it all. But I am not unfamiliar with this subject, so I recognize it's importance so I keep plugging at it. Roger really boils it down to the key fundamentals but that my be too distilled for many people to get.
Maybe the best way is for people to ask Roger questions, or highlight particular passages for explanation. Warren, for example, is very accommodative at his place, and he uses a similar highly distilled style. It tool me awhile to catch on to that also.
Marris: Ask away.
There's not a single word I use that can't be defined with a 10 second google search.
Every year, from Kindergarten through lifelong learning, most people don't understand most of what they see or hear.
That problem is the price we pay for living. Enjoy tackling it. What's the alternative?
@Marris
""Complex systems adapt by organizing increasingly agile exploration of options."
What does the world "agile" mean in this context? You could also use the word "cool" or "awesome" and it would convey the same info. This is just word salad."
For Pete's sake. An agile group is one that can quickly adjust to do many difficult things. That's a "dynamic" property. Cool or awesome are adjectives conveying static opinions, not dynamic properties.
Before posting garbage questions or assertions, try consulting a dictionary.
Post a Comment