Who owns the companies?

[RGacky3]

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/invest11.jpg

BTW, "owning" a company under corporate capitalism is not at all the same as controlling the surplus, or controling the distribution, thats the job of the board of directors, which is extremely undemocratic (about as democratic as the Soviet government was).

[Kornilios Sunshine]

Capitalists own the companies,who are hungry for money and put the workers to hard for them.

[Bud Struggle]

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/invest11.jpg

BTW, "owning" a company under corporate capitalism is not at all the same as controlling the surplus, or controling the distribution, thats the job of the board of directors, which is extremely undemocratic (about as democratic as the Soviet government was).

Damn it Gack, you are posting some shitty stuff these days. What the hell is this graph? Every company in the USA? The Companies on the NYSE? Just stock companies with more than 100 shareholders?

And who do you expect to own companies, the unemployed? Like it's a big shock that homeless people don't own stock companies.

Hell, I own my company--what does that mean, I should be poor?

[Robert]

I'll tell you something else commies are going to have to reckon with: You see that little sliver that only owns half of one percent?

When I was in that small sliver, and maybe I still am (what is that anyway, the bottom 50% in terms of net worth or income?), the only reason I did not own stock was that I just wasn't interested. People would tell me to buy 10 shares of Apple Computer, with my discretionary income, at 17.00/share (2004), but I had such a short term horizon -- no, short term vision -- that I thought they were crazy. Today it closed at $377.37 (Steve Jobs, R.I.P.)

So instead I bought and sold Telecasters, Stratocasters, Martin acoustics,short wave radios, Gibson SG's, classicals, fiddles, a mandolin, amplifiers, NO END of effects pedals, concert grade harmonicas, and all kinds of crazy [email protected]#$%^&* because I dug it. I wasn't a pro and didn't even plan to be.

I could have bought 30 shares of Apple instead of that stupid harmonica (which I still have). But I didn't. So Kapitalyst (or someone as smart as he) bought those shares instead. My decision. My mistake.

It would not have given me democratic control of the company, no. But that isn't the point. I don't WANT to control Apple or Exxon. Gacky says the employees do want control, and that's fine with me (though I don't believe a word of it -- I've actually worked offshore on oil rigs).

The point is that the stock market was and remains open to everybody. There are no institutional barriers to my owning a piece of Exxon or McDonalds either, and there never were.

And here's the dilemma for a revolutionary: if you own one single share, through your retirement plan or directly, you're just as dirty and compromised as I and Norm Chomsky. (Smart [email protected]#$%^&*, I'll give him that.:lol:)

The numbers of shares I could own wouldn't give me power to stop drilling in the North Sea, but it would make me a part owner.

A mandolin? I shoulda been committed.:thumbdown:

[Bud Struggle]

http://www.drumza.com/images/GibsonBillMonroeMandolinStringsPhosphorBronzeWrap. jpg


And what about workers with mutual funds and invested pensions--don't union funds count for a good % of people owning securitized holdings. I thought around 30 some % or so..Aren't workers with pensions in the bottom 50%?

This makes less sense than Robert playing the mandolin.

[Robert]

Bill Monroe!

Gotta love him.

I wonder if he blew any money on "cigareets, and whuskee and wild, wild women"?

4krQBv2TjDg

[Robert]

Oops ... Had too much whuskee and double posted. *Hic*

[Bud Struggle]

I don't think "related" works too well. You have to go to the origional video.

[Robert]

And what about workers with mutual funds and invested pensions--don't union funds count for a good % of people owning securitized holdings. I thought around 30 some % or so..Aren't workers with pensions in the bottom 50%?

Well, they're going to swap all that in exchange for direct democratic control of the companies.

Well, it could happen.:blushing:

[RGacky3]

Damn it Gack, you are posting some shitty stuff these days. What the hell is this graph? Every company in the USA? The Companies on the NYSE? Just stock companies with more than 100 shareholders?

And who do you expect to own companies, the unemployed? Like it's a big shock that homeless people don't own stock companies.

Hell, I own my company--what does that mean, I should be poor?

Its all stocks, bonds and mutual funds.

My point of this threat is to dispell the myth that whats good for wallstreet is good for mainstreet because people have money in stocks or retirements in stocks.

50% of America is'nt unemployed.


And what about workers with mutual funds and invested pensions--don't union funds count for a good % of people owning securitized holdings. I thought around 30 some % or so..Aren't workers with pensions in the bottom 50%?

This makes less sense than Robert playing the mandolin.

Obviously their mutual funds and pensions are a tiny tiny slither of the capital markets, thats the point.

The whole point of this is to show the undemocratic nature of the economy, argue if its justified or not, it is the fact.


Gacky says the employees do want control, and that's fine with me (though I don't believe a word of it -- I've actually worked offshore on oil rigs).


I have too, ask them if they'd rather thave a say over who gets paid what, you won't find one that does'nt want that.

Also say what you want, in the US workers do a lot lot lot worse than say workers in Germany, where they have a measure of control.

Also stock ownership unless your in the top 1% and own a major chunk of the shares, does'nt mean control to any degree.

[Judicator]

Other people have more money than me and I want it!

[Revolution starts with U]

Other people have more money than me and I want it!

We know :lol:

I just want to see people have control over their own lives :cool:

[kapitalyst]

Gacky, you've failed to acknowledge a few simple facts...

1) Most of the people in that top 1% were the original creators and supporters of businesses. I'm not at all surprised when I hear that Mark Zuckerberg owns the largest stock position in Facebook. Once people create wealth, then they buy parts of other businesses (a lot of times older ones) so all their eggs aren't in one basket. Basic financial sense.

2) Most people in America outright refuse to invest in stocks. "No! I might lose money! I'm not smart enough! I'm scared!"... I encourage people to invest all the time, and the vast majority absolutely refuse. Those who do so sensibly are also the most likely to join those top tiers of wealth.

3) There's a lot of bad information and misconceptions about investing and finance out there that prevent people building personal wealth/equity and discourage people from doing it. Let's look at some:

*A 401k is a great retirement program
Actually, a 401k alone is a crap way to plan for retirement. Most have little flexibility to let you make your own decisions, and they are heavily plagued with government regulations.
*You should start a deposit program or deposit the same amount of money in your 401k, pension fund or mutual fund every month.
This is a really, really stupid idea. Everyone knows stocks fluctuate from low values to high values over time. Stocks make gains, become over-valued then have a correction. Why would you invest the same amount of money in over-valued stocks as you do when stocks are a bargain? That is very stupid. Over time, it averages out and your gains become much smaller than they could have been.
*You should use the "buy and hold" strategy: buy stocks and just cling onto them until you're old.
This is probably one of the dumbest things ever. Buy and hold isn't a strategy... it's a brain-dead way of handling your money. A great way to consistently under-perform the market indices, and feel lucky that your dividend payments offset your foolishness.

*Always invest in big, stable "blue chip" companies so your money is safe. Risk is bad.

This is a great way to never make crap. The stocks of large, established companies can be safe and provide some small, long-term growth prospects, and some are worth owning, but everyone knows about them. They're traded on an earnings multiple basis by everyone. You're never going to get many bargains and see big gains. It's good to do some speculation on small, undiscovered businesses and take risks while you're still young. It offers you a chance for explosive growth, bought at bargain prices.

These ideas of "democratic control" are rather silly. If I create a chicken farming business that becomes successful, then it's my business. If I sell off equity in that business, then owners of the equity have some voting power in the company based on how much equity they bought. If you come and work for the company, you aren't owed anything but your paycheck and whatever else I promised you. If you want some power over how the business operates, use your money to start buying stock, and help fund our next expansion or acquisition. Chances are, if the only job you were capable of was collecting eggs from a hen house, then you aren't fit for making management decisions anyway.

[RGacky3]

1) Most of the people in that top 1% were the original creators and supporters of businesses. I'm not at all surprised when I hear that Mark Zuckerberg owns the largest stock position in Facebook. Once people create wealth, then they buy parts of other businesses (a lot of times older ones) so all their eggs aren't in one basket. Basic financial sense.


Most of the largest buisinesses nowerdays are not recent startups like facebook.


2) Most people in America outright refuse to invest in stocks. "No! I might lose money! I'm not smart enough! I'm scared!"... I encourage people to invest all the time, and the vast majority absolutely refuse. Those who do so sensibly are also the most likely to join those top tiers of wealth.


Most people are too busy working in the real economy, nor have enough money to invest.

As for your other points I totally agree, and I have nothing against investing intelligently if you hvae the money to do so.

The point here was just to show the disparity in ownership.


*You should use the "buy and hold" strategy: buy stocks and just cling onto them until you're old.

This is probably one of the dumbest things ever. Buy and hold isn't a strategy... it's a brain-dead way of handling your money. A great way to consistently under-perform the market indices, and feel lucky that your dividend payments offset your foolishness.


I agree with that, a lot of people sight Warren Buffet, with this and his so called "value" investing, most of Warren Buffets money was made the same way the other huge financial institutions made it.

[kapitalyst]

Most of the largest buisinesses nowerdays are not recent startups like facebook.

I know... I explained that. People who become wealthy, through starting their own businesses or investing, buy big chunks of multiple businesses.



Most people are too busy working in the real economy, nor have enough money to invest.


You don't need $1M to start. If you have to, pick up cans are recycle them. Don't buy an iPhone. Don't waste money on beer. Sell everything you don't need. Very few people (I've not met one) are in such a terrible position that it's impossible for them to do this.

"I don't have time" is a lousy excuse. People say they don't have time for anything today, but they spend 4-6 hours a day watching TV and fucking off online. You have to give up some leisure if you want to move up.



I agree with that, a lot of people sight Warren Buffet, with this and his so called "value" investing, most of Warren Buffets money was made the same way the other huge financial institutions made it.


Yes, Buffet is not a brain-dead "buy and hold" guy. He's a fundamental analyst with long-term objectives. He does his homework.

[RGacky3]

You don't need $1M to start. If you have to, pick up cans are recycle them. Don't buy an iPhone. Don't waste money on beer. Sell everything you don't need. Very few people (I've not met one) are in such a terrible position that it's impossible for them to do this.


There are a lot of people in very bad situatoins in the US.


"I don't have time" is a lousy excuse. People say they don't have time for anything today, but they spend 4-6 hours a day watching TV and fucking off online. You have to give up some leisure if you want to move up.


There are much larger cultural implications on this, if you have to surrender your youth to gain some financial security, theres something wrong with the system.


I know... I explained that. People who become wealthy, through starting their own businesses or investing, buy big chunks of multiple businesses.


Most wealth is not made by entreprenours, most wealth is made by those who are already wealthy.

[CommunityBeliever]

You don't need $1M to start. If you have to, pick up cans are recycle them. Don't buy an iPhone. Don't waste money on beer. Sell everything you don't need. Very few people (I've not met one) are in such a terrible position that it's impossible for them to do this.

"I don't have time" is a lousy excuse. People say they don't have time for anything today, but they spend 4-6 hours a day watching TV and fucking off online. You have to give up some leisure if you want to move up.A lot of people work hard throughout the day and then when they get home they are so tired they can't do shit but watch 4 hours of tv before bed. They are too tired to go around recycling things. For example, I can't afford a car, so whenever I get home from the long trip to work I am tired as fuck, certainly not energetic enough to do a lot of things beyond fucking around on online, e.g revleft.

[kapitalyst]

A lot of people work hard throughout the day and then when they get home they are so tired they can't do shit but watch 4 hours of tv before bed. They are too tired to go around recycling things. For example, I can't afford a car, so whenever I get home from the long trip to work I am tired as fuck, certainly not energetic enough to do a lot of things beyond fucking around on online, e.g revleft.

Yeah, I was tired too when I was a manual laborer. But watching some CNBC and reading a few articles on the internet, and analyzing some stocks/commodities doesn't take much physical effort. Shit, if you have a smart phone or laptop, do it all from bed. Even with my serious back problems, I get my ass over to my desk and do it when I'm hurting.

Fact is, we waste lots of time and say we don't have it. Instead of watching American Idol we could be reading books about finance and investing, computer programming and other things (whatever interests you). And how are you a computer programmer, can't afford a car and experiencing such fatigue? :confused:

Anyone who can fuck around on Facebook or Revleft can better employ their time to make money, such as from investing and trading. Especially those possessing the intelligence required to make long philosophical arguments about communism. ;)


There are much larger cultural implications on this, if you have to surrender your youth to gain some financial security, theres something wrong with the system.

Working hard to realize financial goals is not "surrendering your youth"... unless by "youth" you mean a total lack of personal responsibility, thoughtless borrowing and spending and maximizing unproductive leisure.

No, the system that requires you to get off your ass and do something to contribute to society and the market, whether its as menial as picking up cans to recycle resources and reduce litter, gets my vote...

[RadioRaheem84]

Is this more I worked hard to get to where I am, so can you, talk?

Personal responsibility canard? Typical.

Why does the majority of someone's life have to be exhausted on getting rich as if that is the end goal of all mankind?

Why cannot people work and live? Why cannot work provide a liveable wage (and that is just me being liberal)?

Do you realize the presupposed nonsense you bring into this discussion? That anyone who just works like a dog is lazy? Anyone who doesn't utilize their time to make more money is just lacking personal responsibility, even though most of their time here on Earth is dedicated to the boss (for low pay)?

Go fuck yourself you idiotic well trained lackey.

I am so sick of the typical middle management or small business pricks that read too much Von Mises and think they're economic giants, read too much Rand and think their small business is in a titanic struggle against big government.

kapitalyst, I am just asking and could be wrong but are you:

A.) white? B.)middle aged c.) own a small business or are middle management

D.) went to your flagship state school to earn a BBA or an engineering degree?

E.) read Rand or Austrian crap F.) constantly correct people's grammar online and think you've won an argument

[Bud Struggle]

Is this more I worked hard to get to where I am, so can you, talk?

Personal responsibility canard? Typical.

Why does the majority of someone's life have to be exhausted on getting rich as if that is the end goal of all mankind?

Why cannot people work and live? Why cannot work provide a liveable wage (and that is just me being liberal)? If you don't have to drive to get rich--don't do it. Some people want to, some don't.

Do you realize the presupposed nonsense you bring into this discussion? That anyone who just works like a dog is lazy? Anyone who doesn't utilize their time to make more money is just lacking personal responsibility, even though most of their time here on Earth is dedicated to the boss (for low pay)? [/quote] It's not a morality thing. There is nothing wrong with wanting a lot of money and there is nothing wrong with not wanting a lot of money. It really is qute neutral.


Go fuck yourself you idiotic well trained lackey. I take it you don't want to make a lot of money. But there is nothing wrong with people that want to.


kapitalyst, I am just asking and could be wrong but are you:

A.) white? B.)middle aged c.) own a small business or are middle management

D.) went to your flagship state school to earn a BBA or an engineering degree?

E.) read Rand or Austrian crap F.) constantly correct people's grammar online and think you've won an argument

There is nothing wrong with any of that--infact "D" is a key to a good life ne plus ultra.

[RadioRaheem84]

If you don't have to drive to get rich--don't do it. Some people want to, some don't.

Do you realize the presupposed nonsense you bring into this discussion? That anyone who just works like a dog is lazy? Anyone who doesn't utilize their time to make more money is just lacking personal responsibility, even though most of their time here on Earth is dedicated to the boss (for low pay)? It's not a morality thing. There is nothing wrong with wanting a lot of money and there is nothing wrong with not wanting a lot of money. It really is qute neutral.

I take it you don't want to make a lot of money. But there is nothing wrong with people that want to.



There is nothing wrong with any of that--infact "D" is a key to a good life ne plus ultra.[/QUOTE]

Morality is not the point. The point is that society is guided toward either getting rich or die trying, literally work yourself to death. These wages we have are unlivable wages. People work a lot to make ends meet. To say they're for complaining about it is immoral.

[kapitalyst]

Is this more I worked hard to get to where I am, so can you, talk?

Personal responsibility canard? Typical.

Is this more "my-life-is-teh-fail" talk? We should do nothing and expect something talk? Efforts never pay off talk? I didn't get my way so you should pay talk? If I can't win you must have cheated talk? :rolleyes:



Why does the majority of someone's life have to be exhausted on getting rich as if that is the end goal of all mankind?

Why cannot people work and live? Why cannot work provide a liveable wage (and that is just me being liberal)?


The majority of your life doesn't have to be "exhausted on getting rich"...

Why cannot people work and live? Erm... Last time I checked, we were working and living (at least most of us are working, I think).



Do you realize the presupposed nonsense you bring into this discussion? That anyone who just works like a dog is lazy? Anyone who doesn't utilize their time to make more money is just lacking personal responsibility, even though most of their time here on Earth is dedicated to the boss (for low pay)?


The only nonsense here is your putting words in my mouth. :rolleyes:

I wouldn't know if you're "lazy" or not. But you definitely seem afflicted by personal defeatism and ignorance, no offense...



Go fuck yourself you idiotic well trained lackey.


Yeah... I'll do that. And you quit *****ing about not getting your way because you're unwilling to even try to accomplish your financial goals (if you've even got any).



I am so sick of the typical middle management or small business pricks that read too much Von Mises and think they're economic giants, read too much Rand and think their small business is in a titanic struggle against big government.


And I'm sick of this:
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/154845/lazy-hippies



kapitalyst, I am just asking and could be wrong but are you:

A.) white? B.)middle aged c.) own a small business or are middle management

D.) went to your flagship state school to earn a BBA or an engineering degree?

E.) read Rand or Austrian crap F.) constantly correct people's grammar online and think you've won an argument

A) Yes... and my guess is so are you.
B) No. I'm 23.
C) No.
D) No.
E) I am an "Austrian Schooler". However, that's not the actual crap...
F) No.

Sorry, try again. You only managed to get my race (not very hard -- 72.4% of Americans are white) and economic views which I've publicly stated here on the forums.

I am just asking and could be wrong but are you:

A) white?
B) student or recent dropout?
C) in debt?
D) living in an apartment/dorm?
E) like metal or punk rock?
F) unemployed or working a job you find lame?
G) have no actual professional skills?
H) have either no car or an old Toyota/Honda?
I) have a Mac, iPhone or another Apple product?
J) single, or over-weight girlfriend (who probably wears glasses, dies her hair and has a piercing other than her ears... likely tongue/lip)?
K) like tight jeans with lots of holes?
L) often think about or draw what sort of tattoo(s) you want to get?
M) enjoy hanging at Starbucks?
N) were socially rejected in high school?
O) due to social rejection, you became a "goth"?
P) everything is clearly someone other peoples' fault or "the system"?
Q) consider yourself a "rebel" and "non-conformist"? Wait, no... you don't need a label, do you?

Let's see if I did better...



These wages we have are unlivable wages. People work a lot to make ends meet. To say they're for complaining about it is immoral.


You wage doesn't go very far anymore thanks to monetary inflation. But what do I know, that Austrian economics is just a bunch of crap... :rolleyes:

[RadioRaheem84]

Is this more "my-life-is-teh-fail" talk? We should do nothing and expect something talk? Efforts never pay off talk? I didn't get my way so you should pay talk? If I can't win you must have cheated talk?


Why is it always "do nothing, expect something" or "getting my way"?

The simple fact of the matter is that the problem we're facing is systemic, and regardless of how much personal responsibility crap you want to throw in there no amount of pulling yourself up by one's bootstraps can make it better.


The majority of your life doesn't have to be "exhausted on getting rich"...

Why cannot people work and live? Erm... Last time I checked, we were working and living (at least most of us are working, I think).

People are working paycheck to paycheck, longer hours, reduced benefits, dwindling social services, etc. That is not working and living, that is subsisting.


The only nonsense here is your putting words in my mouth. http://www.revleft.com/vb/owns-companiesi-t162221/revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif

I wouldn't know if you're "lazy" or not. But you definitely seem afflicted by personal defeatism and ignorance, no offense...

Personal defeatism? God, where do you loons come up with this shit?

Yeah, the stagnant wages, the loss of political union strength, the falling purchasing power, all that can be countered by good ol' American gumption.

Gee, why didn't I think of promoting that? Because I am not a fucking idiotic Tea Bagger.



Yeah... I'll do that. And you quit *****ing about not getting your way because you're unwilling to even try to accomplish your financial goals (if you've even got any).


So in other words getting rich will make me change my world view?



And I'm sick of this:
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clip...5/lazy-hippies (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/154845/lazy-hippies)



Why are all left wing people hippies to you jackals? Hippies were counter culture group. A lot of them aren't even leftist.


A) white?
B) student or recent dropout?
C) in debt?
D) living in an apartment/dorm?
E) like metal or punk rock?
F) unemployed or working a job you find lame?
G) have no actual professional skills?
H) have either no car or an old Toyota/Honda?
I) have a Mac, iPhone or another Apple product?
J) single, or over-weight girlfriend (who probably wears glasses, dies her hair and has a piercing other than her ears... likely tongue/lip)?
K) like tight jeans with lots of holes?
L) often think about or draw what sort of tattoo(s) you want to get?
M) enjoy hanging at Starbucks?
N) were socially rejected in high school?
O) due to social rejection, you became a "goth"?
P) everything is clearly someone other peoples' fault or "the system"?
Q) consider yourself a "rebel" and "non-conformist"? Wait, no... you don't need a label, do you?

Yes to the ones that have to do with 90% of the youth's economic situation.

You did better because you find the economic situation of many youths amusing.


You wage doesn't go very far anymore thanks to monetary inflation. But what do I know, that Austrian economics is just a bunch of crap...
It is if that is the answer to the economic woes.

[kapitalyst]

Why is it always "do nothing, expect something" or "getting my way"?

The simple fact of the matter is that the problem we're facing is systemic, and regardless of how much personal responsibility crap you want to throw in there no amount of pulling yourself up by one's bootstraps can make it better.

Sigh... ok... :rolleyes:



People are working paycheck to paycheck, longer hours, reduced benefits, dwindling social services, etc. That is not working and living, that is subsisting.


Gee, I wonder why?



Personal defeatism? God, where do you loons come up with this shit?

Yeah, the stagnant wages, the loss of political union strength, the falling purchasing power, all that can be countered by good ol' American gumption.

Gee, why didn't I think of promoting that? Because I am not a fucking idiotic Tea Bagger.


Again, all of this has been adequately explained to you, and you even admit diminished purchasing power is a major problem, yet you insist on clinging to nonsensical views of our problems.



So in other words getting rich will make me change my world view?


You'd need to change your world view to get rich or at least live at a higher standard.



Why are all left wing people hippies to you jackals? Hippies were counter culture group. A lot of them aren't even leftist.


That was not the point... it was satire of you rhetoric and views.



Yes to the ones that have to do with 90% of the youth's economic situation.

You did better because you find the economic situation of many youths amusing.


No, I don't find youth economic issues "amusing". I sincerely hope for better education and a decline in ignorance.



It is if that is the answer to the economic woes.

No, it's not. It's a great way to solve a very big problem though.

[RadioRaheem84]

Gee, I wonder why?


Gee, maybe it's "socialism" :rolleyes: "the government"......



Again, all of this has been adequately explained to you, and you even admit diminished purchasing power is a major problem, yet you insist on clinging to nonsensical views of our problems.



Which cannot be explained away with Austrian rhetoric.


You'd need to change your world view to get rich or at least live at a higher standard.


Of course! I can bypass all of the social ills and economic roadblocks by changing my outlook. It's all about how you see things!

Thank Tony Robbins! I am going to go out and buy Rich Dad, Poor Dad!


That was not the point... it was satire of you rhetoric and views.

If you knew anything about our views, you wouldn't have posted that.


No, I don't find youth economic issues "amusing". I sincerely hope for better education and a decline in ignorance.


As long as they can afford it, no doubt. If not then they just have to pull up their boot straps, there son.

Decline in ignorance? Make sure they stay off Rand and the Austrian school.

[kapitalyst]

Gee, maybe it's "socialism" :rolleyes: "the government"......


Of course not. Government and socialism are the solution to everything, after all. And if a few rich people get executed in the process, well... boo-fuckin-hoo, right? I'd be Lennin-blessed indeed if Big Bro designates ME executioner! :rolleyes:

No, it's not actually "socialism". It's not "pure" socialism either. It's also not Marxism. Hence my calling it pseudo-socialism. It's a bunch of bullshit imperialism, militarism, statist authoritarianism, corporatism and Keynesian nonsense, sprinkled with a few half-ass socialist ideas to make it look good. But that's how so-called "socialism" always turns out in reality, so... enjoy...



Which cannot be explained away with Austrian rhetoric.


*cough* Bullshit! *cough*

Yeah... I remember being an "idiot" in 2007, when we said the economy was fucked and went short. I was also an "idiot" in March/April this year when I said more turbulent times were coming and went short again. Funny how we seem to have this gift of "second-sight". Or maybe it's that we do not indeed possess magical abilities, but actually understand economics? I'll have to think about that... but I'm pretty sure I'm just magical.



Of course! I can bypass all of the social ills and economic roadblocks by changing my outlook. It's all about how you see things!

Thank Tony Robbins! I am going to go out and buy Rich Dad, Poor Dad!


Of course not. Self-loathing and whining is the ticket to success, and the implement of political revolution!



If you knew anything about our views, you wouldn't have posted that.


It's not like there's a consensus... :rolleyes:

No, I'm criticizing your views, as an individual. I can't exactly be sure what they are though, since you go into everything with name-calling and insults... the very reason you're finding some harsh criticism and sarcasm coming right back at ya. If, at any point, you'd like to end the flame war just let me know... we'll just call it a mutual ceasefire.



As long as they can afford it, no doubt. If not then they just have to pull up their boot straps, there son.

Exactly. Since you acknowledge what you've been doing has been unsuccessful, you should continue to do it and demand different outcomes. If you need a recommendation to get a job at the Fed, feel free to use me as a reference. You've got what it takes! :thumbup:



Decline in ignorance? Make sure they stay off Rand and the Austrian school.

True. We wouldn't want anyone to inadvertently come to understand market economics... 'tis too dangerous.

[RadioRaheem84]

No, it's not actually "socialism". It's not "pure" socialism either. It's also not Marxism. Hence my calling it pseudo-socialism. It's a bunch of bullshit imperialism, militarism, statist authoritarianism, corporatism and Keynesian nonsense, sprinkled with a few half-ass socialist ideas to make it look good. But that's how so-called "socialism" always turns out in reality, so... enjoy...



Good god, it's everything but capitalism, huh? Must be something without and not from within. What a a way to break out of the framework, there, mr. independent thinker. You sound like an NWO nutter.



Yeah... I remember being an "idiot" in 2007, when we said the economy was fucked and went short. I was also an "idiot" in March/April this year when I said more turbulent times were coming and went short again. Funny how we seem to have this gift of "second-sight". Or maybe it's that we do not indeed possess magical abilities, but actually understand economics? I'll have to think about that... but I'm pretty sure I'm just magical.




How about Marx back in the 1860s? It doesn't take a neo-classical economist to see the boom and bust of this current crisis.

I've been reading Paul Sweezy a Marxist who said this house of cards was going to crumble and he died in 2004.

Point is, Austrians, libertarians were not the only ones that saw this coming.



Exactly. Since you acknowledge what you've been doing has been unsuccessful, you should continue to do it and demand different outcomes. If you need a recommendation to get a job at the Fed, feel free to use me as a reference. You've got what it takes!


Are you defining success by income?


True. We wouldn't want anyone to inadvertently come to understand market economics... 'tis too dangerous.

Austrian, free market dogma, / = economics

[Revolution starts with U]

Austrians; predicting a collapse for 40 years, and when it finally does half-collapse 40 years later, take all the credit for it.:thumbup:

[Sir Comradical]

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/invest11.jpg

BTW, "owning" a company under corporate capitalism is not at all the same as controlling the surplus, or controling the distribution, thats the job of the board of directors, which is extremely undemocratic (about as democratic as the Soviet government was).

Where did you get this from? Source?

[Judicator]

Where did you get this from? Source?

He made it in MSPaint.

[Sir Comradical]

He made it in MSPaint.

Err no.

[RGacky3]

thinkprogress.org

[RGacky3]

No, the system that requires you to get off your ass and do something to contribute to society and the market, whether its as menial as picking up cans to recycle resources and reduce litter, gets my vote...

So the system that make poor people work for less is the system you prefer? I prefer a system where people can work less for more.

THis thread just shows the mindset of Capitalists, they can't look at the situations of most of the people, they only look at their own situation and base their whole worldview on that.

[kapitalyst]

Good god, it's everything but capitalism, huh? Must be something without and not from within. What a a way to break out of the framework, there, mr. independent thinker. You sound like an NWO nutter.

Actually, you sound like the "NWO nutters"... just replace the words "Bilderburg", "Masons", etc with "the capitalists" and we have your rhetoric... :rolleyes:

I don't believe there is any "conspiracy" going on. We simply have major flaws and failures in our governance. For the most part, politicians think they're doing the right thing. I'm sure Obama (like Bush before him) genuinely believes he's doing "good stuff". Problem is, government attracts a lot of arrogant, authoritarian dickheads who think forcing their ideas down your throat is for your own good -- and there are no more restraints to stop them. We're all a part of this problem.

You, on the other hand, seem to believe in this vast economic conspiracy perpetrated by this small, shady group of "elites" called "the capitalists" to secretly eat all the bread and cheese and make you work at McDonald's forever...



How about Marx back in the 1860s? It doesn't take a neo-classical economist to see the boom and bust of this current crisis.

I've been reading Paul Sweezy a Marxist who said this house of cards was going to crumble and he died in 2004.

Point is, Austrians, libertarians were not the only ones that saw this coming.


I'm glad you've called up one of history's great ironies...

The boom-bust cycle is the direct result of Keynesian (and similar) economic, fiscal and monetary policies. You know who's views Keynesians are sympathetic toward? Karl Marx. Except they believe capitalism should be kept, and just tightly regulated and centrally-planned -- as if they're so intelligent and omniscient as to be able to govern the economic behavior of their fellow man.

I just find it extraordinarily ironic that the boom-bust cycle Marx predicted is the result of actions taken by some of his more moderate sympathizers... :laugh:



Are you defining success by income?


Are you saying that your financial success is not?


Austrian, free market dogma, / = economics

Funny that you have absolutely no sound criticisms to offer whatsoever... Just "crap!", "stupid!", "dogma!", "idiot!", blah, blah, blah... :rolleyes:

[kapitalyst]

Austrians; predicting a collapse for 40 years, and when it finally does half-collapse 40 years later, take all the credit for it.:thumbup:

Communists: predicting the end of capitalism every year and just being really disappointed. :thumbup:

Austrian economic theory makes it astoundingly easy to foresee coming economic crises... For example...

In 1983 Ron Paul became critical of Reagan's spending, economic policy and monetary policy (even denounced his party membership) and said it would result in a market crash around 1986-1987, then... right on time.

On September 10th, 2003, he gave this address (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul128.html) to the House Financial Services Committee not only predicting exactly what would cause the 2008 crisis but offering a solution to avoid the catastrophe... which was, of course, ignored.

I've also been able to pinpoint the who, what, how, when, where and why of economic crises, and even take advantage of it in the market with superb timing.

Your attempt at making us look like some sort of fear mongers is rather feeble. And just another example of the apparent inability to actually criticize AET...

[Revolution starts with U]

Communists: predicting the end of capitalism every year and just being really disappointed. :thumbup:

Touche. But we are not giving years and dates.



Austrian economic theory makes it astoundingly easy to foresee coming economic crises... For example...

In 1983 Ron Paul became critical of Reagan's spending, economic policy and monetary policy (even denounced his party membership) and said it would result in a market crash around 1986-1987, then... right on time.

On September 10th, 2003, he gave this address (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul128.html) to the House Financial Services Committee not only predicting exactly what would cause the 2008 crisis but offering a solution to avoid the catastrophe... which was, of course, ignored.

I've also been able to pinpoint the who, what, how, when, where and why of economic crises, and even take advantage of it in the market with superb timing.

Your attempt at making us look like some sort of fear mongers is rather feeble. And just another example of the apparent inability to actually criticize AET...


Sure, sure. And non-austrians have done well in the recession too. But other than the ABCT, austrianism really doesn't say anything. The whole idea of praxeology, the action axiom, that acting actors act, really says nothing at all. It is the economic equivalent of "God did it."

But I'm glad you didn't deny that austrians have been predicting collapse non-stop for like 70 years.

My position on austrianism is that Mises was the worst thing to ever happen to it. I like some of what Hazlitt has to say. Menger wasn't terrible. Hayek was a respectable economist. Mises was cool, but he codified praxeology, when he really just should have given up on outdated and archaic philisophical systems like a priori.

[kapitalyst]

Sure, sure. And non-austrians have done well in the recession too.


Not too many, but I'm not saying you can't. In 2008, most people were running around screaming "How could this happen!". In May of this year, it was much the same case... "What the hell is going on!? Why can't Bernanke stop this!?". "Mainstream/Keynesian economics" means denying the body of evidence that everything is not fine. :lol:



But other than the ABCT, austrianism really doesn't say anything. The whole idea of praxeology, the action axiom, that acting actors act, really says nothing at all. It is the economic equivalent of "God did it."


You must not know much about it to say something like that... I strongly disagree with Marx, but I'd never claim Marxism "says nothing at all"... it says a lot.



But I'm glad you didn't deny that austrians have been predicting collapse non-stop for like 70 years.


I wouldn't deny there are self-proclaimed Austrian nutjobs that do that. There are nutjobs in every political and economic school of thought who make non-stop outrageous claims. I don't care to descend into mudslinging on the basis of "so-and-so is on your team did/said X, Y, Z so you're all stupid"... as if all Muslims are terrorists because of what a few Muslim extremists did. ;)



My position on austrianism is that Mises was the worst thing to ever happen to it. I like some of what Hazlitt has to say. Menger wasn't terrible. Hayek was a respectable economist. Mises was cool, but he codified praxeology, when he really just should have given up on outdated and archaic philisophical systems like a priori.

Von Mises could be very extreme in some of the things he said and thought. But overall, he was rather brilliant. Hardly surprising to me, considering that he lived under the oppressive Habsburg regime of Austria-Hungary. I still don't see specifically what you take issue with, and why you think it's wrong...

[Revolution starts with U]

Not too many, but I'm not saying you can't. In 2008, most people were running around screaming "How could this happen!". In May of this year, it was much the same case... "What the hell is going on!? Why can't Bernanke stop this!?". "Mainstream/Keynesian economics" means denying the body of evidence that everything is not fine. :lol:

I kind of look at economics, and almost all social sciences, as still stuck in the archaic times before science, when we thought philosophy actually had any substance. That includes Marxism.
I agree with a general marxist critique of capitalism, but I don't really see too much science in Marxist economics either.



You must not know much about it to say something like that... I strongly disagree with Marx, but I'd never claim Marxism "says nothing at all"... it says a lot.

Oh austrians say a lot.. bu they say nothing at all, of substnace, imho. Except the ABCT, which I think has a lot of merit when dealing with a monied society, I really don't see much of any substance in austrianism. It just seems that is all the have to offer, and because of their reliance on archaic a priori systems of thought, I find them even more dangerous than mainstream economists and marxists, who at least try to do actual science.
Prominent austrians will tell you, observable data cannot overwrite economic law (according to austrians). I mean really... that's like biblical fundamentalism.



I wouldn't deny there are self-proclaimed Austrian nutjobs that do that. There are nutjobs in every political and economic school of thought who make non-stop outrageous claims. I don't care to descend into mudslinging on the basis of "so-and-so is on your team did/said X, Y, Z so you're all stupid"... as if all Muslims are terrorists because of what a few Muslim extremists did. ;)

Fair enough. My orignal comment was merely to point out that austrians were not the only ones "predicting" collapse, were for the most part wrong on how it happened, and have really no basis for claiming exclusivity in the prediction department... other than the usual dellusions of grandeur that every little clique experiences.



Von Mises could be very extreme in some of the things he said and thought. But overall, he was rather brilliant. Hardly surprising to me, considering that he lived under the oppressive Habsburg regime of Austria-Hungary. I still don't see specifically what you take issue with, and why you think it's wrong...
I mean, Mises was cool in how he knew that anarchy and capitalism are fundamentally incompatible... strange considering how many of his followers are pseudo anarchists. And I know nothing of him personally, other than that it is said he was very uncompromising and quick to hold a grudge.
But praxeology is just woo-woo. Human action is purposeful, or acting actors act, is the scientific equivalent of "god did it." There's just no substance there.
If I am not mistaken, that was why Hayek rejected praxeology. And wasn't it Hayek who mostly developed the ABCT?

[CommunityBeliever]

And how are you a computer programmer, can't afford a car and experiencing such fatigue? :confused:

Welcome to capitalism there. The vast majority of people are too poor to afford goods like cars, however, being a cognitive scientist/computer programmer is helpful because it doesn't take much physical effort, the only problem is you can't do much programming all by yourself, so you need to organise with other people, but unfortunately our social organisations are flawed under capitalism.


Anyone who can fuck around on Facebook or Revleft can better employ their time to make money, such as from investing and trading. This idea that people should employ all their time making money is immensely stupid, but being thousands of dollars in debt can be a huge fucking motivator to spend all your time taking money, a far greater motivator then greed.

[RGacky3]

I strongly disagree with Marx, but I'd never claim Marxism "says nothing at all"... it says a lot.


You dont know shit about Marx ...


Actually, you sound like the "NWO nutters"... just replace the words "Bilderburg", "Masons", etc with "the capitalists" and we have your rhetoric... http://www.revleft.com/vb/owns-companiesi-t162221/revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif


... Nothing that we say is'nt basically accepted, i.e. Capitalists buy the politicians ....


I'm glad you've called up one of history's great ironies...

The boom-bust cycle is the direct result of Keynesian (and similar) economic, fiscal and monetary policies. You know who's views Keynesians are sympathetic toward? Karl Marx. Except they believe capitalism should be kept, and just tightly regulated and centrally-planned -- as if they're so intelligent and omniscient as to be able to govern the economic behavior of their fellow man.

I just find it extraordinarily ironic that the boom-bust cycle Marx predicted is the result of actions taken by some of his more moderate sympathizers... http://www.revleft.com/vb/owns-companiesi-t162221/revleft/smilies2/lol.gif


Except its not the cause of that, infact the booms and busts come more and more when you move toward a neo-liberal model rather than a keynsian model, and the booms and busts become more and more extreme ...


Funny that you have absolutely no sound criticisms to offer whatsoever...

Plently of criticism first and formost being it does'nt take into account systemic problems and externalities.

[kapitalyst]

I kind of look at economics, and almost all social sciences, as still stuck in the archaic times before science, when we thought philosophy actually had any substance. That includes Marxism.

I'm still not seeing why you actually hold these beliefs, other than an idea the "science is good". Yes, science is "good" and science helps us learn things. But it is indeed futile to approach sociology or economics, for instance, in the way you approach chemistry... and it's horribly unscientific to attempt to do so.



I agree with a general marxist critique of capitalism, but I don't really see too much science in Marxist economics either.


True.



Oh austrians say a lot.. bu they say nothing at all, of substnace, imho. Except the ABCT, which I think has a lot of merit when dealing with a monied society, I really don't see much of any substance in austrianism. It just seems that is all the have to offer, and because of their reliance on archaic a priori systems of thought, I find them even more dangerous than mainstream economists and marxists, who at least try to do actual science.
Prominent austrians will tell you, observable data cannot overwrite economic law (according to austrians). I mean really... that's like biblical fundamentalism.


Here's a fictional example of that Keynesian "science":

In the year XXXX, the central bank used monetary expansion to lower interest rates. Home sales and refinancing increased 35%. Therefore lowering interest rates creates a stronger housing market. This was good for the economy. </insert some statistics>

What they've failed to account for is the fact that the general population grew during that period of time, and there was also a large influx of middle-class immigrants which increased the net demand for housing, goods and services. They also ignore the fact that in the year XXXX + 10, when population growth and immigration finally slowed down, the housing market began to break down -- artificially low interest rates caused a bubble of over-investment in debt by financial institutions to compensate for a low-rate environment. Furthermore, monetary expansion greatly increased the cost of commodities resulting in diminished purchasing power of the national currency. This resulted in higher input costs for businesses, and offset GDP growth. For that reason, wages failed to rise whatsoever and it actually "stimulated" unemployment by 3%. A decade later, we're now entering a recession which probably wouldn't have happened had the central banks not taken this course of action.

An Austrian economist would, in this situation, also use statistics and observation. However, AET realizes that "the economy" is so full of variables that it cannot be treated like a standard science experiment. A Keynesian assumes that the "control" was the economy before the action by the central banks, and the "variable" was their action -- and deludes himself into believing that this is actually scientific. The ultimate source of input in economics is human behavior -- something no mathematical formula or scientific law can explain. An economy is made up of intelligent, sentient agents possessing free will. We don't reject science, we reject "scientism" -- the misuse and abuse of science, and its faulty application in non-empirical domains. All knowledge simply isn't quantifiable. If you would dispute this, then I challenge you to quantify your 'code of ethics' or create a mathematical formula to explain or predict the behavior of a Buddhist. You can't...



Fair enough. My orignal comment was merely to point out that austrians were not the only ones "predicting" collapse, were for the most part wrong on how it happened, and have really no basis for claiming exclusivity in the prediction department... other than the usual dellusions of grandeur that every little clique experiences.


Again, who was wrong and about what and why? :confused:



I mean, Mises was cool in how he knew that anarchy and capitalism are fundamentally incompatible... strange considering how many of his followers are pseudo anarchists. And I know nothing of him personally, other than that it is said he was very uncompromising and quick to hold a grudge.
But praxeology is just woo-woo. Human action is purposeful, or acting actors act, is the scientific equivalent of "god did it." There's just no substance there.


I think that at present, modern human civilization and anarchy are fundamentally incompatible... Anarchy, a noble concept, simply cannot work beyond a small social setting in today's world. When we no longer need armies and warfare, police, etc then I'd consider it. But it is not incompatible with private property. And yes, Mises was uncompromising and quick to hold a grudge.

Where do you get this idea that it is akin to "God did it". You've said this a few times but have no given an argument to the position... :unsure:



If I am not mistaken, that was why Hayek rejected praxeology. And wasn't it Hayek who mostly developed the ABCT?

Hayek didn't outright reject it. He rejected Mises outright rejection of practically all empirical science... and I'm with him there. The scientific method still applies. We just have to know how and when to use it, and what its limitations are in "soft sciences".

Von Mises and Hayek were both proponents of ABCT.

[kapitalyst]

Welcome to capitalism there. The vast majority of people are too poor to afford goods like cars, however, being a cognitive scientist/computer programmer is helpful because it doesn't take much physical effort, the only problem is you can't do much programming all by yourself, so you need to organise with other people, but unfortunately our social organisations are flawed under capitalism.


Dude, c'mon now... That's not what I asked you. :rolleyes:

Are you not working as a software developer? What is your job, and how much are you being paid, if you don't mind me asking? I find it very hard to believe that someone with your knowledge of computer science doesn't have a good job... computer programmers are one of the highest paid workers (many earn more than doctors and lawyers). If you're unable to get along with others to work on a project, then that could explain a lot.



This idea that people should employ all their time making money is immensely stupid, but being thousands of dollars in debt can be a huge fucking motivator to spend all your time taking money, a far greater motivator then greed.

The idea that people should be rewarded for fucking off and doing nothing is immensely stupid, considering the fact that so much is needed in this world (and always will be in some form).

Are you saying you're thousands of dollars in debt? To whom are you indebted, and how much?

[Revolution starts with U]

I'm still not seeing why you actually hold these beliefs, other than an idea the "science is good". Yes, science is "good" and science helps us learn things. But it is indeed futile to approach sociology or economics, for instance, in the way you approach chemistry... and it's horribly unscientific to attempt to do so.

Unscientific, right now, to do so... yes. Futile? I think what is unscientific is assuming there is knowledge we cannot obtain.



Here's a fictional example of that Keynesian "science":

In the year XXXX, the central bank used monetary expansion to lower interest rates. Home sales and refinancing increased 35%. Therefore lowering interest rates creates a stronger housing market. This was good for the economy. </insert some statistics>

What they've failed to account for is the fact that the general population grew during that period of time, and there was also a large influx of middle-class immigrants which increased the net demand for housing, goods and services. They also ignore the fact that in the year XXXX + 10, when population growth and immigration finally slowed down, the housing market began to break down -- artificially low interest rates caused a bubble of over-investment in debt by financial institutions to compensate for a low-rate environment. Furthermore, monetary expansion greatly increased the cost of commodities resulting in diminished purchasing power of the national currency. This resulted in higher input costs for businesses, and offset GDP growth. For that reason, wages failed to rise whatsoever and it actually "stimulated" unemployment by 3%. A decade later, we're now entering a recession which probably wouldn't have happened had the central banks not taken this course of action.

Here's an example of Ptolemaic science:
In the time periods X Y and Z the planets experience parralax and loop back upon themselves in their route around the Earth. This is the universe is on giant gears, and those make the planets loop.

What the Ptolemaics fail to account for is that the sun is at the center of the Galaxy, and the Earth revolves around it. The planets only appear to experience parralax. But if you looked at it from a top down view of the solar system it would not.
What gnostics would argue is that the material world is an illusion and knowledge is fundamentally unobtainable.

Keynesians and marxists: Ptolemaics.
Austrians; gnostics.



An Austrian economist would, in this situation, also use statistics and observation. However, AET realizes that "the economy" is so full of variables that it cannot be treated like a standard science experiment. A Keynesian assumes that the "control" was the economy before the action by the central banks, and the "variable" was their action -- and deludes himself into believing that this is actually scientific. The ultimate source of input in economics is human behavior -- something no mathematical formula or scientific law can explain. An economy is made up of intelligent, sentient agents possessing free will. We don't reject science, we reject "scientism" -- the misuse and abuse of science, and its faulty application in non-empirical domains. All knowledge simply isn't quantifiable. If you would dispute this, then I challenge you to quantify your 'code of ethics' or create a mathematical formula to explain or predict the behavior of a Buddhist. You can't...


I disagree. And so does the ABCT. You see, that is a scientific proposal. It predicts that expanion of the money supply causes misallocation of captial. That is a prediction of human behavior. And it has merit, there is a lot of misallocation of capital when the money supply is expanded.
It is an obvious fallacy to think that because we lack the means right now to predict human behavior, that we cannot. We do predict it at certain times. Like I can predict that if you are hungry, you will most likley eat. If your toes are stepped on, you will feel pain.
Perhaps the problem is that when you try to predict a person's momentum, you interfere with the observation and cannot in any way predict their position... you get what I mean?



Again, who was wrong and about what and why? :confused:

Well it always sucks when you can't find the article you were looking for. But here's this one:
http://axiomaticeconomics.com/wreckage_ABCT.php
http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2010/10/austrian-business-cycle-theory-its.html
There is one article that basically lays out in bullet points the austrians predictions on the crash, and how they were simply wrong. They were right about when, wrong about how. But these articles say the same thing, just not in the neat bullet point fashion.

I mean, I could claim credit for predictions, and I am not even an economist. Right as everything was crashing I predicted that Chase would buy everything and in a few months turn a huge profit. I was doing tax prep at the time and was telling all my customers to invest in Chase. One of them did, and made a lot of money, and promply thanked me for it.
Do you know what theory I used to make that prediction? The "I read on a conspiracy theory website that JP Morgan bought everything and got really rich during the Great Deppression" theory.
It's not enough to predict THAT something will happen, but HOW.



I think that at present, modern human civilization and anarchy are fundamentally incompatible... Anarchy, a noble concept, simply cannot work beyond a small social setting in today's world. When we no longer need armies and warfare, police, etc then I'd consider it. But it is not incompatible with private property. And yes, Mises was uncompromising and quick to hold a grudge
I disagree.



Where do you get this idea that it is akin to "God did it". You've said this a few times but have no given an argument to the position... :unsure:

Why is there an economy? Acting actors act.
Why is there life? God did it.

Humans act purposefully.
1) All sentient action is done purposefully, not just human action. Yes, even instinct is a purposeful action. I am hungry, therefore I will satisfy my need for food.
2) Since when is action purposeful? Rocks fall off mountains all the time. One would be loathe to say it did that because it wanted a lower vantage point.

Humans act purposefully, to Mises an axiom. No amount of evidence can overturn it. But it is a prediciton, as much as he tries to run from that. He is predicting that humans will act purposefully. Do they? Sometimes, it appears not. It often seems humans are on auto-pilot, totally oblivious to cause and effect.
This axiom is taken to explain all kinds of things; like that artifical distortions are "bad" for the economy, like central banks keeping interest rates unnaturally low. But was my mother's artifical distortions of my actions, ie making me go to university, bad for my economy? Of course not. I wouldn't be who I am.

On another note; austrians often only talk about central banks and forget that without the central bank, the regular banks would have and did expand the money supply anyway. Fractional reserve banking is a product of the free market, not government. Government just took it over.




Hayek didn't outright reject it. He rejected Mises outright rejection of practically all empirical science... and I'm with him there. The scientific method still applies. We just have to know how and when to use it, and what its limitations are in "soft sciences".

Well, you, Hayek, and I are sort-of in the same boat.

(My above arguments are haphazard and rambling. I fully admit I do not know much of, nor understand much of the terminology, of the field of economics. I can understand wave function collapse, point particles, wave/particle duality, and things of that nature. But I just have trouble understanding economics. It's like reading an alien language. I read a lot on the subject, and try. But the terminology just makes no sense. When I read it it reads like:
The lbvoedk of the srinis causes people to take risks and idsnrie to a soiene of neislsheis.
So I expect some valid critiques of my positions on economics. And that is good, perhaps it will help me to better understand the economists position.

[kapitalyst]

Unscientific, right now, to do so... yes. Futile? I think what is unscientific is assuming there is knowledge we cannot obtain.

There is most certainly knowledge we cannot obtain. Knowledge we don't even know exists, because our lack of knowledge of its existence leaves us unaware we lack the knowledge at all! :lol:

I don't know if this is actually true, but I've often thought of this... That we will never know what happened before the Big Bang because consciousness within this universe cannot conceive something beyond its existence. I mean, think about it... Let's suppose I have the required technology and knowledge to write a computer-simulated universe of my own. Basically, I am "god" (and no, this isn't a theism argument -- just follow my concept here). I've written all the rules and laws of my universe, and now just sit back and watch it unfold by its "natural" means. How could the denizens of my simulated universe ever know "what happened in the before-time". There was no time, there was no space! There's no such thing as a time before time because there was no time. Their consciousness is limited to their own universe and its time. And without me interfering in the universe of "giving a sign", they would never be sure that I exist -- though they may suspect it. Trying to think about these things like the absence of time and the eternal boggles the brain. :blink:

But in any case, there is knowledge, for sure, which cannot be known empirically...



Here's an example of Ptolemaic science:
In the time periods X Y and Z the planets experience parralax and loop back upon themselves in their route around the Earth. This is the universe is on giant gears, and those make the planets loop.

What the Ptolemaics fail to account for is that the sun is at the center of the Galaxy, and the Earth revolves around it. The planets only appear to experience parralax. But if you looked at it from a top down view of the solar system it would not.
What gnostics would argue is that the material world is an illusion and knowledge is fundamentally unobtainable.

Keynesians and marxists: Ptolemaics.
Austrians; gnostics.


The Austrians would tell the Ptolemaics that they are wrong and aren't considering the actual nature of the universe... that they've made an indefensible assumption and ran wild with it. :thumbup1:



I disagree. And so does the ABCT. You see, that is a scientific proposal. It predicts that expanion of the money supply causes misallocation of captial. That is a prediction of human behavior. And it has merit, there is a lot of misallocation of capital when the money supply is expanded.
It is an obvious fallacy to think that because we lack the means right now to predict human behavior, that we cannot. We do predict it at certain times. Like I can predict that if you are hungry, you will most likley eat. If your toes are stepped on, you will feel pain.
Perhaps the problem is that when you try to predict a person's momentum, you interfere with the observation and cannot in any way predict their position... you get what I mean?


I think you've misunderstood what I've said... unless, of course, you have an algorithm to predict all human behavior? ;)

Yes, we can sometimes predict simple human behaviors. You can predict that I will eat when I'm hungry because my action is indeed purposeful. You didn't use the scientific method, because it wouldn't work. What if I don't eat when I'm hungry? This false "empirical evidence" might lead you to believe that some people don't need to eat when, in fact, I was on a hunger-strike to protest an oppressive regime -- more purposeful action. :lol:

I don't think that praxeology, alone, is enough. And I love the empirical scientific method and the wonders it is capable of revealing. But logic, reasoning and philosophy are very important. Praxeology makes a very profound statement, and has far-reaching implications, which are very important in studying economics.



Well it always sucks when you can't find the article you were looking for. But here's this one:
http://axiomaticeconomics.com/wreckage_ABCT.php
http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2010/10/austrian-business-cycle-theory-its.html
There is one article that basically lays out in bullet points the austrians predictions on the crash, and how they were simply wrong. They were right about when, wrong about how. But these articles say the same thing, just not in the neat bullet point fashion.


I'll look through these later. But actually, most Austrians have been spot on about causality.



Why is there an economy? Acting actors act.
Why is there life? God did it.

Humans act purposefully.
1) All sentient action is done purposefully, not just human action. Yes, even instinct is a purposeful action. I am hungry, therefore I will satisfy my need for food.
2) Since when is action purposeful? Rocks fall off mountains all the time. One would be loathe to say it did that because it wanted a lower vantage point.


So why is there an economy, then? Do only Austrians know this? :cool:

As for #2... I think you have a complete misunderstanding of our views. Rocks are not sentient, and don't even "act". A rock has no purposes or motives, and totally lacks consciousness whatsoever. This argument should simply be discarded...

And #1 is completely correct...

Your criticism, however, is not. There is no equivalency between this and "God did it". I think you could do a better job of advancing an argument, if you insist on having one, by abandoning this notion. We're considering things that happen in the natural universe -- the real world -- as a result of real, living creatures (humans). We're not pointing to some distant event in the history of time and attributing it to a "higher power". Let's move on from this. :)



Humans act purposefully, to Mises an axiom. No amount of evidence can overturn it. But it is a prediciton, as much as he tries to run from that. He is predicting that humans will act purposefully. Do they? Sometimes, it appears not. It often seems humans are on auto-pilot, totally oblivious to cause and effect.


Again, I think you don't understand what Mises was actually saying. Even if your actions are counter-productive in achieving your purpose, they were nonetheless purposeful. That "auto-pilot", our instincts and subconscious, are also purposeful... their purpose is keeping us alive and well. I also think we are indeed conscious of these things, even if we aren't thinking about them with higher orders of consciousness (e.g., more primitive areas of the brain are conscious of them).



This axiom is taken to explain all kinds of things; like that artifical distortions are "bad" for the economy, like central banks keeping interest rates unnaturally low. But was my mother's artifical distortions of my actions, ie making me go to university, bad for my economy? Of course not. I wouldn't be who I am.


What? :confused:

This is a very poor analogy, my friend.



On another note; austrians often only talk about central banks and forget that without the central bank, the regular banks would have and did expand the money supply anyway. Fractional reserve banking is a product of the free market, not government. Government just took it over.


I think you misunderstand our views on central banking and the monetary system as well...



Well, you, Hayek, and I are sort-of in the same boat.

(My above arguments are haphazard and rambling. I fully admit I do not know much of, nor understand much of the terminology, of the field of economics. I can understand wave function collapse, point particles, wave/particle duality, and things of that nature. But I just have trouble understanding economics. It's like reading an alien language. I read a lot on the subject, and try. But the terminology just makes no sense. When I read it it reads like:
The lbvoedk of the srinis causes people to take risks and idsnrie to a soiene of neislsheis.
So I expect some valid critiques of my positions on economics. And that is good, perhaps it will help me to better understand the economists position.

Fair enough. I appreciate the honesty. As for me, I have no clue what "wave function collapse" is. :lol:

I still think your criticisms of AET, among other things, stem from a misunderstanding of it and what we actually believe. I took me a long time and a lot of reading to understand it. As I got deeper into it and the mechanics of markets, I could almost finish the sentences of the brilliant writers and economists I admire. And I developed my real-world trading and investing systems from AET as a foundation. It has been so astoundingly successful that even my wildest expectations were blown away. It's not only accurate in weighing long-term market fundamentals, but even short-term technicals down to the tick. I think you should explore it a bit, and then decide if you like it or not. You said yourself that you don't understand it. I'm here if you want to find out more about it, or if you need anything else. :)

[Revolution starts with U]

There is most certainly knowledge we cannot obtain. Knowledge we don't even know exists, because our lack of knowledge of its existence leaves us unaware we lack the knowledge at all! :lol:

There are dangers we know. Dangers we know we dont know. And dangers we dont know we dont know :lol:

But ya. There IS knowledge that cannot be obtained, like there are parts of the universe so far away from us we will never see them, ever, without going there.
I just find it silly and kind of dangerous to act as if there is not.


I don't know if this is actually true, but I've often thought of this... That we will never know what happened before the Big Bang because consciousness within this universe cannot conceive something beyond its existence. I mean, think about it... Let's suppose I have the required technology and knowledge to write a computer-simulated universe of my own. Basically, I am "god" (and no, this isn't a theism argument -- just follow my concept here). I've written all the rules and laws of my universe, and now just sit back and watch it unfold by its "natural" means. How could the denizens of my simulated universe ever know "what happened in the before-time". There was no time, there was no space! There's no such thing as a time before time because there was no time. Their consciousness is limited to their own universe and its time. And without me interfering in the universe of "giving a sign", they would never be sure that I exist -- though they may suspect it. Trying to think about these things like the absence of time and the eternal boggles the brain. :blink:

That is the problem with multiverse theory. But even physicists right now are trying to test the idea.


The Austrians would tell the Ptolemaics that they are wrong and aren't considering the actual nature of the universe... that they've made an indefensible assumption and ran wild with it. :thumbup1:
I would say the same about the austrians.



I think you've misunderstood what I've said... unless, of course, you have an algorithm to predict all human behavior? ;)

No. But I would like to throw out there is that there could be an algorithim to predict it, or even to reasonably predict it.



I don't think that praxeology, alone, is enough. And I love the empirical scientific method and the wonders it is capable of revealing. But logic, reasoning and philosophy are very important. Praxeology makes a very profound statement, and has far-reaching implications, which are very important in studying economics.

They keep saying that. But I just don't see it. Nobody else has been able to, perhaps you would like to clearly elaborate how praxeology leads to anything?




I'll look through these later. But actually, most Austrians have been spot on about causality.

If you read them you would see they have not. ;)
It's not very wise to just say "ya, i'll get to your evidence, but I in the meantime the opposite of what it says is true."



As for #2... I think you have a complete misunderstanding of our views. Rocks are not sentient, and don't even "act". A rock has no purposes or motives, and totally lacks consciousness whatsoever. This argument should simply be discarded...

Except that we would call a tumbling rock an action. Mises specifically defines it as human action, as the thing which seperates us from the beasts. Is it now "purposeful action?" Even if so, who is to say there was no purpose behind the rock falling?
It's clever semantics. Nothing more.



Again, I think you don't understand what Mises was actually saying. Even if your actions are counter-productive in achieving your purpose, they were nonetheless purposeful. That "auto-pilot", our instincts and subconscious, are also purposeful... their purpose is keeping us alive and well. I also think we are indeed conscious of these things, even if we aren't thinking about them with higher orders of consciousness (e.g., more primitive areas of the brain are conscious of them).

And as such you have completely rendered the idea of "purposeful" meaningless. If any action I ever take is purposeful, why define it as that? And again, if all my action is purposeful, why is not the actions of the rock purposeful too?
Semantics...




What? :confused:

This is a very poor analogy, my friend.

Why? My parents forced an unvoluntary decision on me. It is no different than government planning.




I think you misunderstand our views on central banking and the monetary system as well...

I'm not so sure I do. I never hear about austrians even considering the possiblity of economic crash without a central bank... even tho Rothbard wrote a whole book about it.

Perhaps you could enlighten me on just what makes austrianism worth anything at all?