What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks for the link.

Just to mention, in that story, it says :

<<Like everyone else, members of Congress are subject to current insider trading laws. >>

Patrick
 
Well, don't you think - democracy is a terrible system - except for all the other systems, which are worse?

Patrick
 
Well, I think Rothbard is a fool. There you go.

I find him very sexist. He speaks constantly of 'Man', and refers to 'Every man...' as if that were the only sort of person who might, for instance, own property.

Inspired by you I am indeed reading the article about money. Here's an example:

<< This process: the cumulative development of a medium
of exchange on the free market—is the only way money can
become established. Money cannot originate in any other
way, neither by everyone suddenly deciding to create money
out of useless material, nor by government calling bits of
paper “money.” For embedded in the demand for money is
knowledge of the money-prices of the immediate past; in
contrast to directly-used consumers’ or producers’ goods,
money must have preexisting prices on which to ground a
demand.>>>

I'm open to persuasion about money, but this is a strange piece of rhetoric. It fiddles with the word 'originate' - we can all see, in the historical sense, how this may be right, about the historical origin of money - but implies, as the piece will go on later to maintain, without any clear evidence I know of - that present-day money-creation might 'originate' only under the same rules. This to me is cheap propaganda. It's just using the ambiguity of words to propose a point of view. It doesn't put reference to evidence within it, and in that sense, to me, dishonours the Austrian School.

There are all sorts of wacky ideas around about money, especially after the events of the last few years. Some of the ideas on the left are mad in my view too. This isn't a brilliant example, as I see it. But hey, that's just my opinion.

Please don't be rude.

Patrick

Man is the proper grammatical third person use in English.

Now describe to me how Libertarianism, can be left-wing and applaud state intervention in the economy.

Because I think it's just another Socialist incursion into corrupting and adopting labels to hide true purpose...
 
I stopped using 'Man' as the general word for people 35 years ago, but if you still think it's 'proper' there you go.

That's different from Rothbards' very specific choice of an individual man as his example, here, from the piece you recommended to me:

'If Jones hires some laborers to build a house, with what will he pay them? With parts of the house, or with building materials they could not use? The two basic problems are "indivisibility" and "lack of coincidence of wants." Thus, if Smith has a plow, which he would like to exchange for several different things--say, eggs, bread, and a suit of clothes--how can he do so? '

Explain to me how a woman could feel she is included in this example. Explain to me why it was necessary to make them all blokes.

Patrick
 
Now describe to me how Libertarianism, can be left-wing and applaud state intervention in the economy.

Because I think it's just another Socialist incursion into corrupting and adopting labels to hide true purpose...

This needs a bit of thinking about doesn't it? But I promise you I am thinking about it.

Please don't be rude. I feel it intimidates people who would otherwise like to join in the debate.

Patrick
 
good news........

Sales of men's underwear rose 7.9% in August from a year earlier, according research firm NPD Group. By this measure, at least, we're moving in the right direction.
 
Ready for cap & trade?

In late October, California’s Air Resources Board cleared the last legal hurdles to launch a statewide carbon cap-and-trade regime. Emissions will be capped and emitters will receive permits covering roughly 90 percent of their effluent; if they want to pollute more, they’ll have to buy permits on an exchange. The more cuts made, the more permits available.

The air resources board figures that they’ll be overseeing $10 billion in annual carbon trading by 2016. The objective is to reduce California’s emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The law also requires emissions cuts for vehicles, more efficient appliances and for the state to get a third of its electricity from renewable sources by 2020.

:cool::cool:
 
In late October, California’s Air Resources Board cleared the last legal hurdles to launch a statewide carbon cap-and-trade regime. Emissions will be capped and emitters will receive permits covering roughly 90 percent of their effluent; if they want to pollute more, they’ll have to buy permits on an exchange. The more cuts made, the more permits available.

The air resources board figures that they’ll be overseeing $10 billion in annual carbon trading by 2016. The objective is to reduce California’s emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The law also requires emissions cuts for vehicles, more efficient appliances and for the state to get a third of its electricity from renewable sources by 2020.

:cool::cool:

Weak dollar, and Iran.

Wait till your energy bill skyrockets. :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top