Are Austrian Economists delusional?

[rp4prez]

Not to put the thread back on topic or anything, but I found another great article that has a good reference list of studies! Check it out!

http://www.sprott.com/Docs/Marketsat...20Stimulus.pdf

[Seraphim]

Not to put the thread back on topic or anything, but I found another great article that has a good reference list of studies! Check it out!

http://www.sprott.com/Docs/Marketsat...20Stimulus.pdf

I actually just sent this to my friend.

2 days ago I sent him a whole bunch and his attention perked up when some of them were Harvard/Berkeley peer revied journals. He sent me a short reply saying something like "cool man give me a few days, some of these are long- I will read them" . I sent him a bunch of stuff so I gotta be patient. Thanks RP4Prez, that was a good journal.

[robert68]

Originally Posted by robert68
I was trying to be reasonable with you. The first possessor didn’t use force to gain control of the possession.

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

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

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

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

Merely expressing an opinion others don’t like is not using force. If you don’t threaten him with force first, he won’t need to use force to keep the property.

Do you accuse those in a checkout line ahead of you of using force against you, if they don't let you cut in line?

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

The point is that it’s a consistent (non-arbitrary) definition of property, not defined by might, giving privilege to some.

[WaltM]

Merely expressing an opinion others don’t like is not using force. If you don’t threaten him with force first, he won’t need to use force to keep the property.

I'm not using force when I ask him to give me what I want, the fact he insists he will not without justifying it to me when it's his possession and property, is using force against me.

Do you accuse those in a checkout line ahead of you of using force against you, if they don't let you cut in line?

Yes, or else they'd let me cut in line.

The point is that it’s a consistent (non-arbitrary) definition of property, not defined by might, giving privilege to some.

No it's not.

You've still not answered why the first possessor gets to own.
If it's not defined by might, then what IS it defined by?
What defines property other than agreement, recognition, respect, might, that can apply only to physical property and not intellectual property?
(or are you saying you believe in both)

[robert68]

...

I want to clarify something: property rights are by definition exclusionary. And when those assigned those property rights are either first possessors, or those who contracted with someone who’s title can be traced back to the first possessor (as best is possible), the assigning of those property rights isn’t being decided arbitrarily or by force.

[WaltM]

I want to clarify something: property rights are by definition exclusionary.

How is exclusion not force?

And when those assigned those property rights are either first possessors, or those who contracted with someone who’s title can be traced back to the first possessor (as best is possible)

I don't agree that first possessors are automatically and objectively owners.

they are only owners because they either convinced others that they are, or forced people to agree that they are.

, the assigning of those property rights isn’t being decided arbitrarily or by force.

yes, it is.

and, does that include intellectual property?

[robert68]

Originally Posted by robert68
Merely expressing an opinion others don’t like is not using force. If you don’t threaten him with force first, he won’t need to use force to keep the property.

I'm not using force when I ask him to give me what I want, the fact he insists he will not without justifying it to me when it's his possession and property, is using force against me.

Do you accuse those in a checkout line ahead of you of using force against you, if they don't let you cut in line?

Yes, or else they'd let me cut in line.

Not giving you what you want, is not using force.

[rp4prez]

I actually just sent this to my friend.

2 days ago I sent him a whole bunch and his attention perked up when some of them were Harvard/Berkeley peer revied journals. He sent me a short reply saying something like "cool man give me a few days, some of these are long- I will read them" . I sent him a bunch of stuff so I gotta be patient. Thanks RP4Prez, that was a good journal.

That's AWESOME!! Love to hear your friend might be some what reasonable. Most liberals I send these things to tend to attack my sources etc (even when they are Harvard/Berkeley etc). Mainly because they don't have anything to prove their point of view.

Keep us updated as to what your friend's conclusions are. I know I'm very interested!

[wizardwatson]

I need reinforcements. My friend just called Austrian economists delusional (actually he stated DELUSIONOMICS). I want to compile sources and rational arguments of OTHERS to throw in his face.

I need to rally some troups here ladies and gents, please help me?

A combination of personal experience, sourced links, real practical evidence...anything based on rational thought and logic. Please and thank you. The best replies will be sent to him to read. He thinks giving the Federal Reserve more power is a good idea and that debt issued currency does not result in perpetual and unpayable debt (on a macro scale). DELUSIONOMICS. LOL! $#@!in' idiot.

Help please

I assume your friend is using a pejorative version of "wrong" when he says "delusional".

And they must be wrong about a few things because they disagreed internally about many things, including their "cornerstone" beliefs about monetary theory and how to fix it.

But most of the stuff talked about around these forums isn't really in depth Austrian Economics, its mostly talk about the theories of money and credit within the field.

Mostly its all just deductive reasoning in the same vein as Adam Smith, Henry George and others. You have to look at the specific conclusions they reach an analyze them independently if you want to make headway with your friend. "Austrian Economics" is not some compendium of concrete laws and proofs.

[Seraphim]

That's AWESOME!! Love to hear your friend might be some what reasonable. Most liberals I send these things to tend to attack my sources etc (even when they are Harvard/Berkeley etc). Mainly because they don't have anything to prove their point of view.

Keep us updated as to what your friend's conclusions are. I know I'm very interested!

Will do, he and I shoot emails back and fourth most days. I gave him a lot of economic reading- we both work a lot- I need to be patient.

[MyLibertyStuff]

Your friend is delusional.

[Seraphim]

Your friend is delusional.

HAHAHAH. Yes I know. But instead of childishly telling him that, I just keep dolling out facts, data and historical perspectives that are well- timeless. AKA Jefferson, Mises etc..

[WaltM]

Not giving you what you want, is not using force.

really? you can hold something against and from somebody without using force?

looks like you have a convenient way of saying "my use of force is OK".

[Acala]

I assume your friend is using a pejorative version of "wrong" when he says "delusional".

No, he is being literal. Bohm-Bawerk was convinced that his next-door neighbor was a giant radish from another planet. Little-known fact.

[robert68]

really? you can hold something against and from somebody without using force?

looks like you have a convenient way of saying "my use of force is OK".

If they intend to use force to take it, no. What’s been at issue is how the “property” (ownership) was acquired. Ownership was acquired upon obtaining possession, and being first possessor, no force was used to do so. Once ownership is acquired, the minimum amount of force necessary, can be used to exercise ownership.

[WaltM]

If they intend to use force to take it, no.

Why do you get to use force to keep it, and I can't just have it when I ask you nicely to give it to me?

I wouldn't use force if you just gave me what I wanted. Who gives you the right to claim your property?

What’s been at issue is how the “property” (ownership) was acquired.

yeah, and you've not answered it, the best you've given was "because I saw it first"

Ownership was acquired upon obtaining possession, and being first possessor, no force was used to do so.

So if I saw your house, or your car, I can take it and you're not forced to give it to me.
(but somehow you've convinced yourself that it's OK if you have guns, or the government to force me to respect your property when I never agreed to it)

Once ownership is acquired, the minimum amount of force necessary, can be used to exercise ownership.

What constitutes "acquire"? Do I (the person who didn't claim the property) have to agree to it? If not, how is that just?

Can I person simply claim he owns something without other people respecting it?

[robert68]

QUOTE]


"because I saw it first"

You're not even being honest. And as memory serves me, every concept you don't like is circular to you. I'm finished.

[WaltM]

You're not even being honest. And as memory serves me, every concept you don't like is circular to you. I'm finished.

you've yet to explain how it's not circular.

Please correct me, what is your definition of property that isn't "because I saw it first"? How is it different from "first possessor" and who gives the first possessor the right to claim property and use force to protect it against others?

It's not circular just because I don't like it, I like certain circular answers, but your answer is circular because it's circular, it and it doesn't happen to be one which I like. (and you've failed to show how it's consistent or objective)

[osan]

I actually just sent this to my friend.

2 days ago I sent him a whole bunch and his attention perked up when some of them were Harvard/Berkeley peer revied journals. He sent me a short reply saying something like "cool man give me a few days, some of these are long- I will read them" . I sent him a bunch of stuff so I gotta be patient. Thanks RP4Prez, that was a good journal.

Well, I guess this is good news and bad news all at once. The good news is that your friend is open to other possibilities. The bad news seems to be that credentials are more important to him than is reason.

[Seraphim]

Well, I guess this is good news and bad news all at once. The good news is that your friend is open to other possibilities. The bad news seems to be that credentials are more important to him than is reason.

Agreed. Unfortunately most people think that way. However, finding journals and papers that support our libertarian economic model from "accredited" and known institutions certainly helps.

[Up The Deise]

I have a friend who said the same thing to me. When I responded back to him, he just looked at me and said: 'Ok, you win'. I find that people who make statements like austrian economics is dumb, they haven't thought it throw and have no real comeback.

[Seraphim]

I have a friend who said the same thing to me. When I responded back to him, he just looked at me and said: 'Ok, you win'. I find that people who make statements like austrian economics is dumb, they haven't thought it throw and have no real comeback.

My friend is starting to come to that side: YOU WIN.

His demeanor has changed. Perhaps I was going about it wrongly- but I can tell his defeat is imminent. He's a logical person- thus logic will win. I'm patient.