tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post2751221654688067099..comments2024-03-28T04:13:36.779-04:00Comments on Mike Norman Economics: Irwin Schiff's Nicely Illustrated Comic Book On His Warped View of "Economics"mike normanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03296006882513340747noreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-11995298981856991042012-08-07T15:51:06.425-04:002012-08-07T15:51:06.425-04:00@Marris
""Complex systems adapt by orga...@Marris<br /><br />""Complex systems adapt by organizing increasingly agile exploration of options."<br /><br />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."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Before posting garbage questions or assertions, try consulting a dictionary.Roger Ericksonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17515506247888521516noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-6783897966060192212012-08-07T15:45:06.929-04:002012-08-07T15:45:06.929-04:00Marris: Ask away.
There's not a single word ...Marris: Ask away.<br /><br />There's not a single word I use that can't be defined with a 10 second google search.<br /><br />Every year, from Kindergarten through lifelong learning, most people don't understand most of what they see or hear.<br /><br />That problem is the price we pay for living. Enjoy tackling it. What's the alternative?Roger Ericksonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17515506247888521516noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-24753819277417107642012-08-06T18:48:25.160-04:002012-08-06T18:48:25.160-04:00Roger, take notice.
Tom: > The fact from what ...Roger, take notice.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />marris: "Yes! Exactly!"<br /><br /> 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.<br /><br />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.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-76993883017335508782012-08-06T18:31:35.910-04:002012-08-06T18:31:35.910-04:00> marris, just because you haven't heard of...> 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?<br /><br />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 ...<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><br />> 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.<br /><br />Yes! Exactly!marrishttp://leavesofliberty.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-73820688339524903632012-08-06T17:42:42.625-04:002012-08-06T17:42:42.625-04:00"He owns all the land from sea to shining sea...<i>"He owns all the land from sea to shining sea"<br /><br />I don't think that's entirely correct, technically.</i><br /><br />No, it's right, especially for the use I meant it. There is no such thing <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allodial_title" rel="nofollow">allodial</a>, 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".<br /><br />And while you may hold your freehold in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fee_simple" rel="nofollow">Fee simple absolute</a>, 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."Calgacushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06031818010224747000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-55732889965781022472012-08-06T06:22:53.769-04:002012-08-06T06:22:53.769-04:00"He owns all the land from sea to shining sea..."He owns all the land from sea to shining sea"<br /><br />I don't think that's entirely correct, technically.<br /><br />In Hong Kong the governmnet does literally own the freehold on ALL the land, apart from I think the land under the central cathedral.<br />In Singapore the government owns something like 80% of the land freehold.<br /><br />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.ynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-76028610190028612572012-08-05T22:05:56.298-04:002012-08-05T22:05:56.298-04:00Major Freedom: False. We do not have monetary free...Major Freedom: <i>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."</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br />Do you believe in private property?<br /><br />If you do:<br />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) <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.Calgacushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06031818010224747000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-53596708985969240452012-08-05T17:12:39.190-04:002012-08-05T17:12:39.190-04:00Great explanation, Roger. I suggest making a post ...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.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-10439083985931525182012-08-05T16:47:09.482-04:002012-08-05T16:47:09.482-04:00@MattFranko
" have you ever come across beha...@MattFranko<br /><br />" 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'?"<br /><br />Yes and yes. That's essentially what Adaptive Rate is all about.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Even further yes - if you consider any given metabolite and/or "transition-state" as itself a commodity. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />However, none of these learned associations have ever satisfied all of these three conditions simultaneously:<br />1) guarantee 100% association in any given context;<br />2) guarantee continued association across changing contexts;<br />3) guarantee optimal return in any or all contexts;<br /><br />There isn't any known example of associative learning that can be proven to be the last. There are ALWAYS more options to explore.<br /><br />It's the speed of transitioning between old & newly discovered, optional, associations that counts. That's what we call "adaptive rate."<br /><br />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).<br /><br />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.Roger Ericksonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17515506247888521516noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-67310508159119332262012-08-05T16:23:59.501-04:002012-08-05T16:23:59.501-04:00'justify the argument that Schiff's book i...'justify the argument that Schiff's book is "a fascinating mix of useful & twisted concepts, many misapplied."'<br /><br />What's the inverse of documenting?<br /><br />Anyway, Schiff's comic book self-documents as an example of something that fails to logically documenting anything coherent.<br /><br />It's like writing a math treatise stating sequentially that<br />1+1 = 3;<br />2+2 = 7;<br />3+3=5;<br /> etc, etc<br />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.Roger Ericksonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17515506247888521516noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-32168487757000487322012-08-05T11:32:02.637-04:002012-08-05T11:32:02.637-04:00I said "not entirely true".
The financ...I said "not entirely true". <br /><br />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.ynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-144429338464686832012-08-05T10:26:09.553-04:002012-08-05T10:26:09.553-04:00What does 2008 have to do with whether or not cons...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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-45423026808910024292012-08-05T07:13:24.766-04:002012-08-05T07:13:24.766-04:00"The US economy grew before 1971."
The ..."The US economy grew before 1971."<br /><br />The money supply increased hugely before 1971, both 'fiat' spending and bank credit.<br /><br />When the US was created, the currency was established by the government. They said: this is money. Not that - this.ynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-84834554709537365142012-08-05T07:09:01.445-04:002012-08-05T07:09:01.445-04:00"Consumer debt doesn't lower our standard..."Consumer debt doesn't lower our standard of living. It rasises it."<br /><br />Not entirely true. See 2008.<br /><br />you need some constraints on bank expansion of debt and a better balance between private debt and public 'debt'.ynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-91236326777502733392012-08-04T11:05:47.379-04:002012-08-04T11:05:47.379-04:00Good summary, Leverage.
Unique among species, hu...Good summary, Leverage. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />Reflection on experience was Socrates' definition of philosophy, the mosts general knowledge from which all mor specialized knowledge arose.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-84635987408101709312012-08-04T04:06:18.997-04:002012-08-04T04:06:18.997-04:00"What does the world "agile" mean i...<i>"What does the world "agile" mean in this context?"</i><br /><br />Increasingly fast. Organism who don't increase their adaptive rate (how fast they evolve) just disappear. <br /><br />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).<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><br />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.Leveragenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-61800745904265808582012-08-04T03:55:40.864-04:002012-08-04T03:55:40.864-04:00"We'll have monetary freedom as soon as t..."We'll have monetary freedom as soon as the state ceases using coercion in compelling everyone to pay taxes in US dollars."<br /><br />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).<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Leveragenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-75448820007877465692012-08-03T23:50:48.541-04:002012-08-03T23:50:48.541-04:00In the comic government gives loans to freeloaders...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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-75208211442418805092012-08-03T23:46:49.078-04:002012-08-03T23:46:49.078-04:00Lets start with the assertion that fiat monetary s...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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-8027367658753222852012-08-03T18:18:53.013-04:002012-08-03T18:18:53.013-04:00marris, just because you haven't heard of a wh...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.<br /><br />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.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-32038111041139084622012-08-03T17:07:30.966-04:002012-08-03T17:07:30.966-04:00Roger,
In your evolutionary studies have you ever...Roger,<br /><br />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" ?<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_fetishism<br /><br />This would be interesting to know....<br /><br />Rsp,Matt Frankohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11978352335097260145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-7986384842784802832012-08-03T16:21:57.854-04:002012-08-03T16:21:57.854-04:00@Major_Freedom
I have not yet been able to unders...@Major_Freedom<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Here is one sentence from the description:<br /><br />"Complex systems adapt by organizing increasingly agile exploration of options."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />The rest of the description is for more "decentralized decision making"... one of the main advantages of the *market*.marrishttp://leavesofliberty.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-83673367104253234912012-08-03T16:02:46.030-04:002012-08-03T16:02:46.030-04:00I think I want to go back to arguing with FDO abou...I think I want to go back to arguing with FDO about semantics..... :pMatt Frankohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11978352335097260145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-84317044702152451742012-08-03T15:30:48.251-04:002012-08-03T15:30:48.251-04:00I'm still waiting for someone, anyone, to just...I'm still waiting for someone, <i>anyone</i>, to justify the argument that Schiff's book is "a fascinating mix of useful & twisted concepts, many misapplied."<br /><br />None of you have done this. All I have seen is evasion. <br /><br />Evasion does not constitute a valid justification.Major_Freedomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-5969478477697152832012-08-03T15:26:50.159-04:002012-08-03T15:26:50.159-04:00Leverage:
According to what Tom says this stateme...Leverage:<br /><br /><i>According to what Tom says this statement is bullshit: "Economic laws don't change when states impose a monopoly money."</i><br /><br />Then what Tom says is bullshit, because that is a true statement.<br /><br /><i>So, why are we discussing again? Gold fascists (only the state could enforce using a 'gold standard') or anti-government(society) idealists pointless discussions.</i><br /><br />What's the difference between gold money fascists and fiat money fascists? They're both state enforced.<br /><br /><i>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?</i><br /><br />Stop crying and whining.<br /><br /><i>We already have monetary freedom.</i><br /><br />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." <br /><br /><i>If corporations and people (some say corporations are people but lol) decide to use state money (including banks) is not our fault.</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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<br /><br />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.<br /><br />------------------<br /><br />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. <br /><br />It's the same thing with the state. It doesn't matter if they're majority elected. It's still coercive on the individual.Major_Freedomnoreply@blogger.com