I would put it as, When is public investment ownership and operation, or public investment and ownership and private operation a more optimal solution private investment and ownership, or public investment and subsequent privatization with respect to effectiveness in meeting public purpose and efficiency of resource use regarding public goods.
Sunday, July 15, 2012
Yves Smith — Is Public Ownership A Solution?
I would put it as, When is public investment ownership and operation, or public investment and ownership and private operation a more optimal solution private investment and ownership, or public investment and subsequent privatization with respect to effectiveness in meeting public purpose and efficiency of resource use regarding public goods.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
46 comments:
https://mises.org/journals/jls/9_1/9_1_2.pdf
"If there is one well-established truth in political economy, it is this: That in all cases, for all commodities that serve to provide for the tangible or intangible need of the consumer, it is in the consumer's best interest that labor and trade remain free, because the freedom of labor and trade have as their necessary and permanent result the maximum reduction of price" - Gustave de Molinari
Major Freedom, what's your occupation?
Anonymous @ 5:01 PM:
Anonymous, do you want to make an ad hominem attack because you choose not to, or are unable to, argue against the content of what I posted?
It is quite irrelevant what I do for a living on this blog. My statements rise and fall according to logic and evidence, not how I make money.
I'll just say I sell "goods" which are highly sought after, and that my customers are much better off if what I sell them is open to competition by other sellers, and not just me.
I'm not making an ad hominem attack, I'm asking you what your occupation is.
I like how the austrians ignore what is said in the article, and just repeat their cult mantra & as usual ignore reality.
The article links to a book with an apropos title:
"Bold Endeavors: How Our Government Built America, and Why It Must Rebuild Now"
by Felix G. Rohatyn
There has been a long and intersting discusting in many countries like Germany,Sweden Canada how use allready public owned pensions fund in a way that benefit both companies and employes in the long run.They use to be called Wage-arner funds.You could read about it at
http://column.global-labour-university.org/2011/04/economic-democracy-idea-whose-time-has.html
http://www2.ne.su.se/paper/wp08_02.pdf
Anonymous
I'm not making an ad hominem attack
I didn't say you are in fact making an ad hominem attack. I realize you're not at this time making one.
I'm asking you what your occupation is.
Why, so that you can make an ad hominem attack after I tell you?
What will do with the information I give you, and what does it have to do with what I posted?
jeg3:
I like how the austrians ignore what is said in the article, and just repeat their cult mantra & as usual ignore reality.
I like how the MMTers ignore what is said in the article I posted, and just repeat their cult mantra and as usual ignore reality.
Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Major Freedom's hero:
"the natural outcome of voluntary transactions between private property owners is non-egalitarian, hierarchical, and elitist. In every society, a few individuals acquire the status of an elite through talent. Due to superior achievements of wealth, wisdom, and bravery, these individuals come to possess natural authority, and their opinions and judgments enjoy wide-spread respect. Moreover, because of selective mating, marriage, and the laws of civil and genetic inheritance, positions of natural authority are likely to be passed on within a few noble families. It is to the heads of these families with long-established records of superior achievement, farsightedness, and exemplary personal conduct that men turn to with their conflicts and complaints against each other. These leaders of the natural elite act as judges and peacemakers"
"...democratization has succeeded where kings made only a modest beginning: in the ultimate destruction of the natural elite and nobility. The fortunes of the great families have dissipated through confiscatory taxes, during life and at the time of death. These families' tradition of economic independence, intellectual farsightedness, and moral and spiritual leadership have been lost and forgotten."
"True intellectuals, like Mises and Rothbard, can not do what they need to do without the natural elites. Despite all obstacles, it was possible for Mises and Rothbard to make themselves heard. ...This would not have been possible without the support of others. Mises had Lawrence Fertig and the William Volker Fund, which paid his salary at NYU, and Rothbard had The Ludwig von Mises Institute, which supported him"
http://www.mises.org/etexts/intellectuals.asp
"The American model – democracy – must be regarded as a historical error, economically as well as morally."
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Hans-Hermann_Hoppe#On_Democracy
Ah, I see. The austrian school is about ending democracy and restoring the "natural elites" (the aristocracy) to their natural position at the head of a hierarchical, feudal, elitist society. Their work is thus supported by modern-day "natural elites" (the very rich).
Note the fetish for heraldic symbols within austrian circles.
Note that all of the austrian school economists were members of the nobility/aristocracy.
Major_Freedom is an heir elect to the future world genetically superior aristocracy and he calls MMT a cult....!
"I'm asking you what your occupation is."
Why, so that you can make an ad hominem attack after I tell you?
What will do with the information I give you, and what does it have to do with what I posted?"
Being an ass is an 'austrian' (poor austrians, what have they done) characteristic? Or reading minds? Or having a crystal ball?
God some people is really stupid.
Anonymous, The funda mental conservative position from the get-go has been that there is a natural order and that in it some are more fit that others and its their natural right to rule over the others.
Democracy is a liberal position. Conservatives have done everything in their power to modify the institutions of democracy iaw their "natural order." The US was founded as a representative republic not a liberal democracy, as some wanted at the time, notably Thomas Paine, and were overruled by the majority. More than half of the population was disenfranchised, including women and slaves. Even today, the conservatives party, threatened by shifting demographic is turning to voter suppression.
The problem for libertarians of the right is that their position is self-contradictory, resting on both liberal and conservative principles that are opposed and conflict. So in the end they want actual freedom for elites as the natural order and freedom only in principle but not in fact for the rest.
Ahh, this gives me a chance to recycle that Henry Simons quote:
“We may endure regulation for a time, on the dubious assumption that governments are more nearly competent to regulate than to operate."
I'd point out the creation of nonprofit electric cooperatives during the New Deal was very clever. A nonprofit utility whose directors are elected by member-consumer base on a one man, one vote principle is indistinguishable from ownership by a government elected by the same polity... except one is socialism and the other is not.
In George Norris's (the Johnny Canal of publicly owned power) home state of Nebraska, they call a spade a spade"... their co-ops, "public power districts", openly call themselves "a subdivision of the state".
All of which makes me think perhaps bank reformers should focus on building up the existing Credit Union co-ops instead of creating new institutions.
Andrew:
Major_off_topic meet Major_pernickety_ass
You seem mad.
Anonymous
Ah, I see. The austrian school is about ending democracy and restoring the "natural elites" (the aristocracy) to their natural position at the head of a hierarchical, feudal, elitist society. Their work is thus supported by modern-day "natural elites" (the very rich).
False. The natural order based on private property rights is not feudalist. It's the exact opposite. Feudalism is state ownership and control over all land, where the state decides who the lords can sell their lands to. That's not private property.
Oh, and you didn't say "elite" enough times. One more and you'll realize that yes, there are people who are faster, more intelligent, more productive, and more innovative than you. I know it hurts.
Their work is thus supported by modern-day "natural elites" (the very rich).
False. The rich are by and large against free competition. They prefer to use state power because it's available. Rich people in a statist society tend to use the state to their own advantage. They actually loathe competition from the lowly masses. It embarrasses them and cuts into their profits.
As usual, you have it backwards.
Andrew:
Major_Freedom is an heir elect to the future world genetically superior aristocracy and he calls MMT a cult....!
I am a member of a cult for recognizing that Usain Bolt is genetically predisposed to running faster than midgets? That Albert Einstein was by his nature more intelligent than Snookie? That Henry Ford and Bill Gates are more productive and more innovative than you?
You seem mad at the thought of being inferior to others, in the eyes of others. You lack self-esteem. Who cares if there are people better than you? We can't all be the best at everything. Focus on what you're relatively best at. You know, what Ricardo proved benefits everyone (law of comparative advantage).
You equivocate the term "aristocracy." Aristocracy is a form of monopoly government controlled by a few elite citizens. That's what we have now you blockhead. I am calling for its demolition. You can't stop people being better than you. You can only ever bring people down to your level if you want equality. Ever read the story by Vonnegut called Harrison Bergeron? That's your worldview taken to its logical conclusion. Vonnegut wrote that short story for you yokels.
Leverage:
Being an ass is an 'austrian' (poor austrians, what have they done) characteristic? Or reading minds? Or having a crystal ball?
You're just mad that you can't be an ass because I won't play your game.
Tom Hickey:
Anonymous, The funda mental conservative position from the get-go has been that there is a natural order and that in it some are more fit that others and its their natural right to rule over the others.
I am not a conservative. I don't want anyone to "rule" anyone else. In a private property order, where some become relatively more wealthy and more influential than others, that isn't "rule" based on violence. It's based on consent. Everyone does this today even within the coercive statism. They view some people more favorably than others because of what they do and what they think.
Democracy is a liberal position.
Democracy is a violent position based on those who rule and those who are ruled.
Conservatives have done everything in their power to modify the institutions of democracy iaw their "natural order."
Not by abolishing the state, but by changing what the state does. That isn't what I am advocating.
The problem for libertarians of the right is that their position is self-contradictory, resting on both liberal and conservative principles that are opposed and conflict.
False. There is no conflict. Private property and economic freedom are not self-contradictory. Libertarianism is composed of, but not derived by, both conservativism and liberalism that are NOT in conflict, but in harmony. Economic freedom is in harmony with civil freedom. Human rights make no sense without property rights.
So in the end they want actual freedom for elites as the natural order and freedom only in principle but not in fact for the rest.
False. Libertarians want freedom for all individuals. The fact that libertarians want to protect the productive from social parasites does not imply they want those productive people to coercively rule everyone else.
You are misrepresenting the libertarian philosophy.
beowulf:
I'd point out the creation of nonprofit electric cooperatives during the New Deal was very clever. A nonprofit utility whose directors are elected by member-consumer base on a one man, one vote principle is indistinguishable from ownership by a government elected by the same polity... except one is socialism and the other is not.
That is socialism because it is a state enforced monopoly/oligopoly. It's fascist in nature.
What, you didn't know that FDR modeled his corporatist New Deal after the fascist Benito Mussolini.
FDR's personal letters revealed that he was impressed by what Mussolini was doing and said that he kept in close touch with that "admirable gentleman." Source: http://www.amazon.com/dp/1890771406.
Mussolini himself praised the New Deal as following his own corporate state, as quoted in a July 1933 article in the New York Times, "Your plan for coordination of industry follows precisely our lines of cooperation." Source: http://www.amazon.com/dp/1577181433
-----------
It's quite the irony that the left wing people here favorably cite FDR. I guess all it takes is state violence against economic freedom, and both left wing and right wing radicals can find something in common.
beowlulf: "All of which makes me think perhaps bank reformers should focus on building up the existing Credit Union co-ops instead of creating new institutions."
Decentralization is best. The principle of subsidiarity in political thought states that decision making should be kept as close as possible to those whom the decisions affect.
What the federal govt has that no one else does is self-funding. the federal govt should be used for funding purposes, not operations other than where necessary, e.g., the military, where the president is in charge of foreign policy and there is civilian control of the military. Here is logical that the president is commander-in-chief.
You might as well link to the wikipedia page you got your quotes from instead of linking to amazon.
"It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history."
Ludwig von Mises.
"As long term institutions, I am totally against dictatorships. But a dictatorship may be a necessary system for a transitional period... Personally I prefer a liberal dictator to democratic government lacking liberalism. My personal impression – and this is valid for South America – is that in Chile, for example, we will witness a transition from a dictatorial* government to a liberal government."
*fascist
Friedrich von Hayek.
Tom Hickey:
Decentralization is best
I wholeheartedly agree.
I find it puzzling however that you don't apply this seemingly universal principle to the production of money or the production of security and defense.
For money, you have made it clear that you believe centralization of money production in the hands of the (democratic) state is best. Isn't that the exact opposite of the dictum "decentralization is best"?
MF I find it puzzling however that you don't apply this seemingly universal principle to the production of money or the production of security and defense. For money, you have made it clear that you believe centralization of money production in the hands of the (democratic) state is best. Isn't that the exact opposite of the dictum "decentralization is best"?
You want to decentralize everything down to the level of individuals. Total impractical in today's world. The objective should be rather to work to levels of decentralization that are practical, and very few these involve individuals acting alone rather than in terms of institutional rules.
My view of money creation at this point is that government more trustable than private banks, when the banking sector is dominated by a handful of giant banks that have demonstrated a high degree of corruption. Turning money creation entirely over to them would be suicidal.
Yes I know you don't want that either, but the fact is that this is the institutional structure that is in place and it is not budging. Moreover, most people seen to prefer using these banks in spite of this knowledge. The assumption that people will prefer honest institutions to dishonest is just not being borne out.
Moreover, where does decentralization end? How do you decentralize money creation down to the individual level? Impossible. Institutions are necessary and when they are introduced the issues begin. Large institutions come to dominate through economies of scale.
Tom Hickey:
"I find it puzzling however that you don't apply this seemingly universal principle to the production of money or the production of security and defense. For money, you have made it clear that you believe centralization of money production in the hands of the (democratic) state is best. Isn't that the exact opposite of the dictum "decentralization is best"?"
You want to decentralize everything down to the level of individuals. Total impractical in today's world.
You completely misunderstand. I didn't say I wanted each individual to use a unique money. Only that they be FREE to CHOOSE what money they want to use. The result of this can be, and probably will be, millions of people using the same money!
The production of food is decentralized down to the individual level. Any individual can grow food in their own backyard. Would you claim food production is "impractical"?
What you mean by such concepts as "impractical" and "unworkable" and so on, is the same meaning that another poster used those terms. You mean it is impractical and not workable FOR STATESMEN to control. That's all. When individuals are free to use their own money, then that makes it very hard, if not impossible, for the state to TAX them. After all, if Joe buys and sells potatoes for gold, while Jim buys and sells computers for silver, while Frank buys and sells houses for oil, how can the state possibly keep track of all these transactions and TAKE a portion for themselves?
You want to cartelize money in the hands of the state because only then can taxation, and control over economic activity be "efficient."
You're not basing your convictions on individual people, but only a certain group of people who you call the state.
The objective should be rather to work to levels of decentralization that are practical, and very few these involve individuals acting alone rather than in terms of institutional rules.
What is practical is a function of what is mutually beneficial between consenting exchange partners. You have no knowledge of what is "practical" for entire swaths of millions of people and the millions more exchange combinations. You're thinking like a central planner, a centralization advocate, and you don't even know it.
Again, it does not follow that money sovereignty at the individual level will result in 300,000,000 different currencies in the US. On the contrary, as both economic logic and history have shown, open market competition in mediums of exchange tend to result in one or a few major currencies that are universally accepted. Gold and silver for example became dominant not by state decree, but by the market process of exchange at the individual level, such that more and more individuals realized that certain commodities performed the function of money better than others. Durability, homogeneity, divisibility, and relatively highly valued, are what a "good" money entails.
Even chemists have shown why gold and silver tend to become the monies of choice in a free society. They have shown that gold and silver satisfy the characteristics of a good money in most people's judgment better than other elements and materials. See this wonderful video:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/02/15/131430755/a-chemist-explains-why-gold-beat-out-lithium-osmium-einsteinium
Tom Hickey:
My view of money creation at this point is that government more trustable than private banks, when the banking sector is dominated by a handful of giant banks that have demonstrated a high degree of corruption.
Why are governmental individuals more trustworthy than non-government individuals?
States kill more people, steal from more people, defraud more people, coerce more people, and lie to more people, than the average private institution individual has ever done. It's not even close. I mean it's like light years apart. During the 20th century alone for example, governments have killed almost 100 million people in peacetime, and over 260 million including wartime.
But, regardless of the subjective value judgment you place on the state, even if YOU trust governmental individuals more than you trust non-governmental individuals (which is astonishing to read, but anyway), that is no rational justification for your subjective values to overrule everyone else's by force. You are not the only person in the world you know. What others value for themselves should be treated as equally relevant and important as what you value for yourself. But others can't do what they value for themselves if you force YOUR money on them against their will!
How can you be against a mandatory, violence backed, coercive, accept it or go to jail state enforced gold standard, but you're not against the state's actions if the only difference is that the gold is paper instead? Do you have any idea how ludicrous it is? It would be like saying "I am totally against the state making it mandatory for everyone to wear a rabbit suit! But, if they forced everyone to wear a Tilley Hat...then that would be OK with me."
You don't have to trust private banks. You can trust yourself. Individual centered money production is at the individual level, NOT "the corporate level."
Can you not see how competing private currency issuers would have an INCENTIVE to be more honest? If any got caught lying, or defrauding their customers, then they would lose profits to their competitors. Contrast that with monopoly state issued currency, and if the state lies, if the state defrauds people, then there is no other alternative. We're stuck. The state knows this, which is why they do not have an incentive to be honest. The only thing holding the US Fed somewhat honest, for example, are other central banks, which serve SOME element of competition.
Imagine if there was one world central bank with no competition. The incentive to be honest would drop to virtually zero.
Decentralization is a good thing, and decentralization as a good thing is maximized when individuals, not country or city majorities, are free to choose.
Turning money creation entirely over to them would be suicidal.
Why?
I think it would be the exact opposite. Turning money production over to INDIVIDUALS would be the safest, most stable system of money production there can be.
Is private production of food, clothing, and housing "suicidal"? Or is putting all production in the hands of the state like in North Korea and USSR suicidal?
Tom Hickey:
Yes I know you don't want that either, but the fact is that this is the institutional structure that is in place and it is not budging.
False. We already have what you claim to be optimal, namely, state control of money production. Just because you don't like the results of it, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Moreover, most people seen to prefer using these banks in spite of this knowledge.
They are FORCED to use the money the banks issue, because they have to pay taxes with it and the state decrees bank credit and the resulting deposits as legal tender.
The assumption that people will prefer honest institutions to dishonest is just not being borne out.
Because of people like you. It is precisely because of people who are supporting dishonest systems, that we don't have honest systems. You see inevitability because you intellectually capitulate. You are ignoring the fact that humans act. That we can learn.
Moreover, where does decentralization end?
At the individual of course, just like food production decentralization ends at that level, even though food production is nowhere near as chaotic as money production.
How do you decentralize money creation down to the individual level? Impossible.
POSSIBLE. It is decentralized by enough people like you educating people about it. By showing how just like free competition in the production of food, cars, clothes, shelter, computers, cars, and everything else, is to the consumer's best interests. Consumers are best off when the production of what they want is as open to competing labor as possible. The maximum competition is borne out of individual economic freedom.
"Freedom" of groups necessarily entails enslavement, however minor, of other groups.
Institutions are necessary and when they are introduced the issues begin.
Institutions are a product of individual learning and actions. They are not primary. Their value extends only as far as individuals valuing them. If you value an institution, then it is not necessarily the case that every other individual values it in the same way.
Large institutions come to dominate through economies of scale.
Have you ever asked how institutions can become large in open competition in the first place? Large institutions don't pop out of nowhere. In a free market, you can only grow your business if you continue to serve consumers better than the competition.
Why do you demand that the largest single institution of all, the state, maintain money hegemony, and than talk down on large private institutions? You're not making any sense. Plus there is the fact that large private institutions are almost always the recipients of some oligopoly/monopoly government privilege or another.
Every disparaging comment you're making about private institutions, is maximized with the maximally monopolistic state.
In a free society, which is possible, not impossible, consumers are fully justified in rewarding only a few good producers if there are only a few good producers whose output they find valuable and useful relative to others. It's a socially optimal solution, based on individual choice.
Tom Hickey:
You want to decentralize everything down to the level of individuals. Total impractical in today's world.
You're saying it would be more "practical" if I prevent you from making your own economic choices for yourself, by force, such that your economic choices are the same as mine?
Or would it be more "practical" if we talk with each other, listen to each other's ideas, and then decide what is best for ourselves, and if there is an exchange opportunity, then let's exchange, and if there isn't, then OK, let's agree to disagree, and go our separate ways?
What is wrong with this? This method works between you and I, and it works between every other possible combination of social interactions.
How can me using force against you so that there is less decentralization than at the individual level, be more "practical"? I don't see how it could be.
Maybe in your wisdom in the arts of scientific violence, you can educate me.
Anonymous:
You might as well link to the wikipedia page you got your quotes from instead of linking to amazon.
I'd rather source the books, articles, and papers.
"It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history."
Ludwig von Mises.
Yeah quoting out of context. The REST of what Mises wrote in that same paragraph which you of course conveniently omitted, because it would prevent you from portraying Mises as an ideological supporter of fascism:
"But though its policy has brought salvation for the moment, it is not of the kind which could promise continued success. Fascism was an emergency makeshift. To view it as something more would be a fatal error."
And more context:
"Fascism can triumph today because universal indignation at the infamies committed by the socialists and communists has obtained for it the sympathies of wide circles. But when the fresh impression of the crimes of the Bolsheviks has paled, the socialist program will once again exercise its power of attraction on the masses. For Fascism does nothing to combat it except to suppress socialist ideas and to persecute the people who spread them. If it wanted really to combat socialism, it would have to oppose it with ideas. There is, however, only one idea that can be effectively opposed to socialism, viz., that of liberalism."
"It has often been said that nothing furthers a cause more than creating, martyrs for it. This is only approximately correct. What strengthens the cause of the persecuted faction is not the martyrdom of its adherents, but the fact that they are being attacked by force, and not by intellectual weapons. Repression by brute force is always a confession of the inability to make use of the better weapons of the intellect—better because they alone give promise of final success. This is the fundamental error from which Fascism suffers and which will ultimately cause its downfall. The victory of Fascism in a number of countries is only an episode in the long series of struggles over the problem of property. The next episode will be the victory of Communism. The ultimate outcome of the struggle, however, will not be decided by arms, but by ideas. It is ideas that group men into fighting factions, that press the weapons into their hands, and that determine against whom and for whom the weapons shall be used. It is they alone, and not arms, that, in the last analysis, turn the scales."
"So much for the domestic policy of Fascism. That its foreign policy, based as it is on the avowed principle of force in international relations, cannot fail to give rise to an endless series of wars that must destroy all of modern civilization requires no further discussion. To maintain and further raise our present level of economic development, peace among nations must be assured. But they cannot live together in peace if the basic tenet of the ideology by which they are governed is the belief that one's own nation can secure its place in the community of nations by force alone."
Anonymous:
"As long term institutions, I am totally against dictatorships. But a dictatorship may be a necessary system for a transitional period... Personally I prefer a liberal dictator to democratic government lacking liberalism. My personal impression – and this is valid for South America – is that in Chile, for example, we will witness a transition from a dictatorial government to a liberal government."
Friedrich von Hayek.
Suppose a gang holds your family hostage and threatens to kill them if you don't pay. Suppose the choices available to you are: A. Temporary dictatorship in your house by a non-owner that can kill the gang, and B. Revolution and international war outside your house which sees the only people who can stop the gang as valuing your family lower in the ranking of things to devote scarce resources to, such that your family ends up being killed.
If you chose dictatorship, would that be an ideological advocacy of dictatorship? Of course not. This is why Mises also wrote (in that same chapter):
"Now it cannot be denied that the only way one can offer effective resistance to violent assaults is by violence. Against the weapons of the Bolsheviks, weapons must be used in reprisal, and it would be a mistake to display weakness before murderers. No liberal has ever called this into question. What distinguishes liberal from Fascist political tactics is not a difference of opinion in regard to the necessity of using armed force to resist armed attackers, but a difference in the fundamental estimation of the role of violence in a struggle for power. The great danger threatening domestic policy from the side of Fascism lies in its complete faith in the decisive power of violence."
You are misrepresenting what Mises and Hayek wrote, which I can only surmise as intellectual fraud on your part.
Ah, I see. It's ok to paint FDR as a fascist on the basis of a random quote, but doing the same thing with Mises "The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history", and Hayek "a dictatorship may be a necessary system for a transitional period" is not ok?
"I'd rather source the books, articles, and papers."
You haven't read the books, you've read a wikipedia page.
Why are governmental individuals more trustworthy than non-government individuals?
Because politicians are accountable to the electorate periodically and know it. Private individuals pulling control levers like money creation are not accountable.
The challenge is ensuring that private interests don't capture public institutions, that the electorate is informed, and that elections are free and fair.
Because politicians are accountable to the electorate periodically and know it.
Accountable how? Consumers can bankrupt a bad company almost overnight by simply peacefully abstaining from purchasing its products.
How is individuals having to wait every 4 years, or drum up enough support from others to bring about a recall, and not only that, but no matter who is "elected", their rule is mandatory on everyone regardless, makes states more accountable to the people?
Private individuals pulling control levers like money creation are not accountable.
Sure they are. They are accountable to the market test of profit and loss. Private individuals "pulling levers" in money creation doesn't mean that you have to accept any of it! You can abstain from accepting it, and you won't have to leave for Somalia.
The challenge is ensuring that private interests don't capture public institutions, that the electorate is informed, and that elections are free and fair.
Public institutions are "captured" a priori by their very nature. They are institutions born out of the population of people. Public institutions are just private institutions that have become mandatory on everyone, or at least the financing of them are mandatory on everyone, which makes exploitation and non-accountability unavoidable. So what, people can "elect" new "represenatives", but there would still be people in charge of those institutions, and they would STILL be mandatory on everyone.
Who in the world has values and actions that will make everyone in the country better off if their values and actions are made mandatory for everyone? There are no such people.
Private institutions are voluntary. You don't have to do business with them if you don't want to. Public institutions on the other hand are involuntary. You have to pay them and obey their commands whether you want it or not, even if you are peaceful and simply don't want to participate.
Just consider the largest private company in the world, Wal-Mart. With Wal-Mart, each individual in society, you, me, your neighbor, mother, etc, can each choose individually on whether or not they want to do business with them. If you don't want to do business with them, then you don't have to, and you don't have to move to Somalia. You can continue to live your life dealing with other private property owners.
This choice does not exist with the state. Payment is mandatory on their terms Dealing with them is mandatory on their terms.
How in the world is someone in charge of something like that MORE accountable to others, compared to an institution that has to SERVE the consumer's interests or else they'll CEASE TO EXIST as an institution?
Suppose I am against Wal-Mart sending in drones to middle eastern countries and killing civilians with laser guided bombs. Oh, woops, I mean suppose the state does that. How can I cease paying the state money for financing such insanity? How can I hold the state accountable from my perspective? What, try to get a new President elected? Do you know how hard that is for a regular individual like me? It's damn near impossible.
Contrast that with if Wal-Mart used drones to bomb innocent families. I can at LEAST stop paying them, and I am sure many others would stop paying them as well. That would undermine their ability to hurt people MORE than the state is undermined, because state financing is mandatory.
Are you sure public institutions are more accountable than public institutions? It sounds like you're shooting from the hip and haven't really thought this through enough to make a rational judgment.
Anonymous:
Ah, I see. It's ok to paint FDR as a fascist on the basis of a random quote
No, it's not based on a mere quote. It's based on FDR's letters AND his actions. His statements and his actions were fascist/corporatist in nature.
but doing the same thing with Mises
Except you're not doing "the same thing with Mises." You're quoting Mises OUT of context, which was ANTI-fascist, and, what's more important, you are not taking into account Mises' ACTIONS.
"The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history", and Hayek "a dictatorship may be a necessary system for a transitional period" is not ok?
That partial quote ignored the rest of the quote:
"But though its policy has brought salvation for the moment, it is not of the kind which could promise continued success. Fascism was an emergency makeshift. To view it as something more would be a fatal error."
"I'd rather source the books, articles, and papers."
You haven't read the books, you've read a wikipedia page.
I've read the books, I own the books, and I've SOURCED the books, which was my claim of what I'd rather do.
"Accountable how? Consumers can bankrupt a bad company almost overnight by simply peacefully abstaining from purchasing its products."
Come on Major, consumers are lucky if they can figure out how to tie their shoes.
There is a big difference between what consumers have the power to do and what they choose to do in the aggregate.
Public education teaches us how to be good little worker-bees and the benefits of being submissive.
It will take a great deal more suffering before the sheeple figure out they have been screwed.
Accountable how? Consumers can bankrupt a bad company almost overnight by simply peacefully abstaining from purchasing its products.
Like customers are doing with the big banks that control the US financial system and have been documented as cheating their customers and capturing regulators? Really?
Paul:
"Accountable how? Consumers can bankrupt a bad company almost overnight by simply peacefully abstaining from purchasing its products."
Come on Major, consumers are lucky if they can figure out how to tie their shoes.
You're shooting your own position in the foot. If consumers are so stupid they can't tie their shoes, then they must be even more stupid when it comes to the intricacies of politics and choosing the right politicians!
If the market cannot work because people are too stupid, then good lord, politics would be even worse!
There is a big difference between what consumers have the power to do and what they choose to do in the aggregate.
In the aggregate they have the power to, and they can choose to, bankrupt any company they want. They simply stop spending money at those businesses. If the market is free, and if the state does not hamper entry, then the incentive for producers to cater to consumer preferences is maximized.
Public education teaches us how to be good little worker-bees and the benefits of being submissive.
So abolish government intervention into education as well!
It will take a great deal more suffering before the sheeple figure out they have been screwed.
There is no better time for this than the present.
Tom Hickey:
Like customers are doing with the big banks that control the US financial system and have been documented as cheating their customers and capturing regulators? Really?
Tom, the banking system in this country is CONTROLLED BY THE STATE. You cannot possibly argue against consumers bankrupting companies in a free market, by pointing to an instance of a state monopolize system where even if consumers TRY to bankrupt enough bad banks, then the state will simply print off fresh new dollars for them and pretend like they didn't do anything wrong.
Goodness Tom, I mean really? You're pointing to the inefficacy of consumers to determine the course of economic affairs, by pointing to a state monopoly institution? Well holy cow! You're getting my point after all!
Imagine now if the banking system was completely privatized like Wal-Mart and McDonalds and Ford, and THEN ask yourself if consumers have more power in bankrupting them and eliminating bad activity, compared to eliminating bad governments.
I hope you're honest enough to realize that it's not even close, that they have far more power in eliminating Wal-Mart than they do the CIA, given that either are controlled by psychopaths.
"If consumers are so stupid they can't tie their shoes, then they must be even more stupid when it comes to the intricacies of politics and choosing the right politicians!"
Yep, but they aren't born stupid, they're made stupid by an education system that avoids teaching critical thinking so we'll be good little worker bees.
"In the aggregate they have the power to, and they can choose to, bankrupt any company they want."
That's exactly what I just wrote - they don't choose to because they are unaware they're being screwed.
"So abolish government intervention into education as well!"
A better solution would be to teach people what they need to know to maximize their individual skills and potential.
"If the market is free, and if the state does not hamper entry, then the incentive for producers to cater to consumer preferences is maximized."
Too many implausible ifs in that statement for that conclusion to be reached.
Producers won't have many people to cater to because only a few will succeed, the natural flow of wealth is in one direction, to a handful of elites.
If at the end of every business cycle more wealth is removed from workers than is paid, after all business exists to make a profit, and in the aggregate businesses have a net profit, then eventually all wealth will be drained from the worker class following some number of business cycles.
Where will the wealth to replace what they have lost come from? Are you advocating printing extra money and giving it to workers to keep the system going?
"There is no better time for this than the present."
There is no good time for people to suffer. There is no need now, but it appears that it will happen anyway because our leaders are incompetent or evil.
MF, Smaller banks go bankrupt all the time and are put into resolution. If enough customers stopped doing business with BOA, they would be out of business is short order. But people seem to just go back for more.
You own the books and have read the books yet your quote comes direct from wikipedia and your reference comes direct from wikipedia. Ok then.
Anonymous: "You own the books and have read the books yet your quote comes direct from wikipedia and your reference comes direct from wikipedia. Ok then."
I don't see how that is relevant to anything. It is a lot easier to cut and paste rather than type in a passage from a book. I wouldn't fault anyone for that. Why not take the easy way?
However, it is considered proper to acknowledge sources and provide links for quotes. I would fault someone for being sloppy for not doing that.
sorry, I don't know whether to trust the Major or not. Just got ripped off a bit by some guy who seemed genuine. People will tell you anything.
Anonymous:
You own the books and have read the books yet your quote comes direct from wikipedia and your reference comes direct from wikipedia. Ok then
I own the books and I have read the books precisely because I found them on Wikipedia.
Tom Hickey:
MF, Smaller banks go bankrupt all the time and are put into resolution.
Yes, and they are bought up by the most politically connected banks with Fed bail out access.
If enough customers stopped doing business with BOA, they would be out of business is short order. But people seem to just go back for more.
BOA keeps getting bailed out.
Consumers are not the direct power of bankrupting the most politically connected banks.
Quote from Major Slavery: "False. The natural order based on private property rights is not feudalist. It's the exact opposite. Feudalism is state ownership and control over all land, where the state decides who the lords can sell their lands to. "
There is no pre-existing natural order based on private property rights. Property is rules, apriori property means apriori right to rule over others aka "the divine right of kings."
Property is an assertion of violence against all others who would use that which you claim to be property and thus can only be valid in terms of prior institution of hierarchy in human relations.
Feudalism most certainly isn't state ownership but rather private ownership by the private monarchy which why the King ruled in the his own name.
Any assertion to the contrary is pure ignorance.
The "lords" don't have the right to sell the land because it isn't there property rather the king's and they are mere manangers of the Crown's property.
Quote: "One more and you'll realize that yes, there are people who are faster, more intelligent, more productive, and more innovative than you"
And these ubermensch are necessary the ones who own property right? So no questioning the divine natural order...
Haha... you just a Monarchist pig claiming divine rights and racial, and tribal superiority just like a schoolyard bully or even a dog marking his territory.
Quote: "The rich are by and large against free competition. They prefer to use state power because it's available."
The essence of the state power is the state enforcement of private property rights against the natural cooperation humanity with common excess to land, capital, credit, etc...
Quote: "I don't want anyone to "rule" anyone else. In a private property order, where some become relatively more wealthy and more influential than others, that isn't "rule" based on violence. It's based on consent. "
OMG! That is exactly the argument that every monarchist, every defender of slavery,defenders of chattle marriage contacts, and Imperial conqueror have used historically.
The consent argument is bogus. I can't alienate my right to self rule based on any decision, contract, or property agreements. The reason why the US Declaration of Independence was such a shocking document was for the first time in world politics it declared that certain things couldn't be consented to and that people are sovereign above any alienable claim such as property.
Private property is rules damn it. When you say you want property you saying that you want to see people ruled over by a law of property.
You are in direct contradiction with yourself.
Quote: "Democracy is a violent position based on those who rule and those who are ruled."
The rule of the private property owning classes is much more so...as all rule is based on violence which is all life. Grow up and deal with the actual natural order of violence, change, and power struggle. There nothing to be gained by pretending that unchanging natural property orders exist and build our lives such utopian drivel.
Quote: "
That is socialism because it is a state enforced monopoly/oligopoly."
So is the ownership of private property by a few which is mathematically the necessary result of an unlimited ability to acquire property in a "free market" of imperfect humans with unequal powers of reason.
(continues...)
Quote from Major Slavery: "You completely misunderstand. I didn't say I wanted each individual to use a unique money. Only that they be FREE to CHOOSE what money they want to use. "
No you don't! You want a gold standard and a ban on self issued fiat credit and FRB banking. I like self issued fiat credit and if the a government isn't powerful to have sovereign control over it's self issued credit system against the money power then you can be sure that any private based money won't stand a chance which exactly why the Money power created the gold standard in the first place. You are simply a tool.
Quote from Major Slavory: " The production of food is decentralized down to the individual level. Any individual can grow food in their own backyard. Would you claim food production is "impractical"?"
You are a special kind of idiot aren't you? It's called division of labor idiot. Civilization is modual centralization and from the scientific point of view merely the extension of the cephalization in the biological information systems that govern material allocation.
But a magic market creationist like yourself doesn't believe in evolution or the concept of knowable physical cause.
Quote: "When individuals are free to use their own money, then that makes it very hard, if not impossible, for the state to TAX them."
No, people are perfectly free right now to use their own tokens and money in private transactions and do so quite often. The state has the right to tax everyone who accepts dollars and the legal jurisdiction where there use of state currency is voluntarily accepted as part of under the legal jurisdiction of the state. Has Bitcoin replaced the dollar? No and it's not going to.
Quote from State: "You want to cartelize money in the hands of the state because only then can taxation, and control over economic activity be "efficient."
Projection again. A metal standard in the Internet age could only happen due to cartelization. I mean seriously, even if you wanted a non government controlled supply and rare item why would use gold when you use cryptographic code. Code beats gold any day of the weak. You aren't even a serious Austrian.
If you don't want taxes then don't accept dollars and agree to live under the jurisdiction of the United States Government.
Quote: "What is practical is a function of what is mutually beneficial between consenting exchange partners. You have no knowledge of what is "practical" for entire swaths of millions of people and the millions more exchange combinations. "
So now you are a mind reader who has read the "minds of swaths of millions of people and the millions more exchange combinations" and knows that that I don't have a slightest idea of what human beings want or would generally consider a good or bad deal?
That argument of the unknowability of macro based on large numbers in the mirco has been refuted in science since Gauss and Abel.
The fact that you are still making that anti-physical argument shows you're not actually thinking but simply reciting Rockerfeller and Koch funded talking points.
You are an apologist for institutions of force and fraud but defend them as freedom and liberty.
Major Slavery is truly a man to be pitied.
Septeus7:
"You completely misunderstand. I didn't say I wanted each individual to use a unique money. Only that they be FREE to CHOOSE what money they want to use. "
No you don't!
YES I DO. You don't decide what I want. I decide what I want.
You want a gold standard and a ban on self issued fiat credit and FRB banking.
No, I don't want a gold standard nor do I want a fiat standard. I want a free market standard where individuals are free to use whatever money they want. You can use fiat paper if you want, others can use gold if they want.
I like self issued fiat credit
"No you don't! You want a state monopolized fiat standard and a ban on self issued gold credit and 100% reserve banking."
See? Anyone can play your STUPID game.
and if the a government isn't powerful to have sovereign control over it's self issued credit system against the money power then you can be sure that any private based money won't stand a chance
That's a contradiction. If a state is not monopolizing money, then that means private issuers will stand a chance, because they are free to compete with each other.
which exactly why the Money power created the gold standard in the first place. You are simply a tool.
False. There is no "monetary power" that created gold as money. gold became the money of choice among individuals in the market. Nobody forced them. They chose it. You are a tool of the fiat money state and their banking friends.
" The production of food is decentralized down to the individual level. Any individual can grow food in their own backyard. Would you claim food production is "impractical"?"
You are a special kind of idiot aren't you? It's called division of labor idiot.
That's the point I am making you stupid idiot. Division of labor, including labor in money production. Let individuals economically compete to decide which individuals are best at producing food, and which are best at producing money, all the while everyone being free to compete in both food and money production.
You're saying division of labor, but you're so stupid you can't even relate it to money production.
Civilization is modual centralization and from the scientific point of view merely the extension of the cephalization in the biological information systems that govern material allocation.
Platitudes of an ignoramus.
Civilization is not modual centralization. If that were true, then the state would be producing everything, not just money.
Septeus7:
But a magic market creationist like yourself doesn't believe in evolution or the concept of knowable physical cause.
A magic socialist creationist like yourself cannot see that there is no evolutionary law that compels humans to communism. That's Marxist theocratic boloney.
"When individuals are free to use their own money, then that makes it very hard, if not impossible, for the state to TAX them."
No, people are perfectly free right now to use their own tokens and money in private transactions and do so quite often.
No, they are not perfectly free. They are forced to pay taxes in US dollars you idiot. Even if they trade in non US dollar commodities, the IRS will charge people the "equivalent" in US dollars, which means they have to go out and accept them in commerce.
The state has the right to tax everyone who accepts dollars and the legal jurisdiction where there use of state currency is voluntarily accepted as part of under the legal jurisdiction of the state.
From where did this alleged "right" derive?
Has Bitcoin replaced the dollar?
Have taxes ceased being mandatory in dollars?
No and it's not going to.
If the state demanded taxes in Bitcoins, then they will become artificially overvalued just like the toilet paper money the state prints.
"You want to cartelize money in the hands of the state because only then can taxation, and control over economic activity be "efficient."
Projection again.
It cannot possibly be a "projection" when I am calling for the exact opposite of that, which is what you are calling for. I want monetary freedom for all individuals. YOU want to cartelize money in the hands of the state because only then can taxation, and control over economic activity be "efficient."
A metal standard in the Internet age could only happen due to cartelization.
I am not calling for a mandatory metal standard. I am calling for a free market in money.
Septeus7:
I mean seriously, even if you wanted a non government controlled supply and rare item why would use gold when you use cryptographic code.
Let the individual decide that for himself you slave driving thug.
Code beats gold any day of the weak. You aren't even a serious Austrian.
Let individuals decide that for themselves you totalitarian wannabe.
If you don't want taxes then don't accept dollars and agree to live under the jurisdiction of the United States Government.
Even if I only trade in gold, the state will threaten me with being thrown into a cage if I don't pay them taxes in US dollars you stupid idiot.
"What is practical is a function of what is mutually beneficial between consenting exchange partners. You have no knowledge of what is "practical" for entire swaths of millions of people and the millions more exchange combinations. "
So now you are a mind reader
It's the exact opposite. I am telling YOU that YOU are not a mind reader. You don't know what millions of other people want.
YOU don't have the slightest clue what millions of other people want.
And yet you're making sweeping claims about the alleged superiority of various currency alternatives. Let individuals decide for themselves you slave driver.
That argument of the unknowability of macro based on large numbers in the mirco has been refuted in science since Gauss and Abel.
Not in the social sciences.
The fact that you are still making that anti-physical argument
I am not making any anti-physical argument.
shows you're not actually thinking but simply reciting Rockerfeller and Koch funded talking points.
False. In fact, the Rockefellers WANT a state imposed fiat regime. They are dead set against a free market in money. You could not be more wrong. YOU are a tool of the Rockefellers.
You are an apologist for institutions of force and fraud but defend them as freedom and liberty.
YOU are an apologist for institutions of force and fraud, but defend them as freedom and liberty.
You are truly a boy to be pitied. You are suffering from the biggest case of cognitive dissonance I've seen in a long time. You are accusing me of having the very convictions YOU have. Here I am talking about freedom, and there you are talking about violence backed government control, and you're saying I am an apologist for institutions of violence?
You're crazier than a bag of wet cats.
Post a Comment