Best Thread Keynes Vs. Hayek

[Pat494]

You did say illegal loggers didn't you? How is capitalism conducive to illegal activity?

Explain how people like me are trashing the planet, while people like you are not.

Money money money is the capitalist god.
Cut down the rain forests - for money
Poison the oceans - for money
etc etc.

The true capitalist won't let poncy legality get in his way

 

[new_trader]

Money money money is the capitalist god.
Cut down the rain forests - for money
Poison the oceans - for money
etc etc.

The true capitalist won't let poncy legality get in his way

Well, to use Martinghoul's style of tounge in cheek reply, the true Socialist eats children for breakfast and drowns kittens for fun.

 

[new_trader]

Money money money is the capitalist god.
Cut down the rain forests - for money
Poison the oceans - for money
etc etc.

The true capitalist won't let poncy legality get in his way

In all seriousness, you clearly don't know the difference between motive and conducive.

 

[Martinghoul]

Well, to use Martinghoul's style of tounge in cheek reply, the true Socialist eats children for breakfast and drowns kittens for fun.

Completely agree (and no, I am not being facetious). I grew up in a "Socialist" society and, based on some first-hand experience, I think it's a horrendously bad idea. But, quite clearly and, again based on my personal experience, the opposite extreme (duc's proposals are the ultimate manifestation of this line of thought) is also very bad. The optimum, as usual with things like this, lies somewhere in between the two extremes. The problem with the idea, of course, is that the spectrum is wide and the choice of an optimal point is subjective. That makes the optimal "equilibrium" unstable, but that's the nature of the beast. So, to be sure, the choice of the optimal point is what I normally argue about with you, n_t.

 

[Pat494]

Completely agree (and no, I am not being facetious). I grew up in a "Socialist" society and, based on some first-hand experience, I think it's a horrendously bad idea. But, quite clearly and, again based on my personal experience, the opposite extreme (duc's proposals are the ultimate manifestation of this line of thought) is also very bad. The optimum, as usual with things like this, lies somewhere in between the two extremes. The problem with the idea, of course, is that the spectrum is wide and the choice of an optimal point is subjective. That makes the optimal "equilibrium" unstable, but that's the nature of the beast. So, to be sure, the choice of the optimal point is what I normally argue about with you, n_t.

At last moderation, toleration and good sense - let's hope they prevail.

 

[Pat494]

Well, to use Martinghoul's style of tounge in cheek reply, the true Socialist eats children for breakfast and drowns kittens for fun.

I have never even suggested Socialism is the answer.
The way they spend everything they can get their hands on beggars belief imho.
They should forfeit all but £500 and the clothes they stand up in as punishment. But not even an admission or an apology has been forthcoming. They protect each others backs when the chips are down. I see Gordon has got himself a cushy job as UN educator-in-chief ! Aaaah that'll be more socialism when the kids grow up I suppose - an absolute scandal just like Blair's cushy job as some sort of roving ambassidor.

 

[ducati998]

I don't want to spend too much time on semantics, except to say that I have proven many theorems using logical principles, and also proven many lemmas using the same, but never a theory. Please direct me to the unquestionable proofs of the theory of relativity and the theory of evolution. There's terminology involved here, it's subtle though, I'll grant you that.

Actually, I believe you are correct: theorem is actually the correct term.

I wonder why they call it Newton's theory of gravity then...Newton's theory of colour...Newton's theory of motion...etc. These are all just hypotheses as far as they apply to the real world, all just ideas. Newton has actual theorems. They haven't been falsifiable, certainly not by Einstein, it's that they didn't apply to the real world, and Einstein presented a more realistic model of the real world. And now people look for an even more realistic model. The theorem's aren't falsified, the theory just doesn't tell the whole story.

I would now accept this, based on the definitions.


I already did, but you didn't understand.

I understand the mathematical and the philosophical ideas of logic. Neither applies universally to issues involving humans or the world in which we live.

I agree, mathematics, is not applicable to the social sciences, and have already stated that. Which is why subjective "theorems," the "Theorem of Money," for example, are true, and are universal. It is so because the theorems are based upon ourselves, we are the "causative" agents.

Is there a proof that it does? You can try to apply them and come to a conclusion, but there's no guarantee that is the correct conclusion as far as it applies to the real world.

The real world of what? Physical sciences, or the real world in which we interact, the world, which, due to our being human, we have created? I am, with economics, referring to the latter, and, the theorems of economics are universal as they relate to economic interactions, involving us, humans.

Statements such as "The theory, being universal, will always describe "reality."" are meaningless. Is the theory of evolution universal? Does it apply to rocks for example? Do rocks evolve? Do chemical elements evolve? You see it's not universal at all. Theories aren't. It has no real proof, only evidence, and yet it is the theory of evolution. Get it yet?

If we are arguing the physical world and physical sciences, I have already made that point, and therefore, agree. However, where I disagree is within the social sciences, where, the causative agent is ourselves. In this case, the theorems of economics are universal.

You've also managed to miss the other point I made, which is that the valididty or correctness of a solution depends upon what you're looking at. There is non-Euclidean Geometry, so in the non-Euclidean world, conclusions of Euclidean geometry are easily refutable.

Indeed. But that is not refuting Euclidean geometry, that is relaxing, or ignoring postulates of EG, which then "allows" NEG. However, NEG, is based on, or derives from EG axioms. So, does NEG "really" refute EG? I'm not enough of a mathematician to argue whether or not that is the case. However, your "point" doesn't hold as much water as you suggest.

Which one applies to the real world? Neither applies universally.

Which begs the question: what is the real world of which we speak? My error of course was to wander off into areas of epistemology that do not apply to the topic at hand, which is economic. Mathematics, as we agree, is wholly illegitimate when applied to economic phenomena.

You could make a good argument that neither applies at all. So yes I can refute it, logic can. Try to understand the process of such things. You make some assumptions, you can even call them axioms if you wish, you define your terms and you use logic to derive from those basic assumptions some conclusions. Your assumptions may be wrong, doesn't matter, because it's not universal, it only applies within the framework of the assumptions you've made.

The point remaining, on which we disagree, is the "unversality" of economic theorems. As when we discuss the physical sciences, I essentially agree, leaving only the social sciences, economics being the most developed of these, where we seemingly currently disagree.

Economic theorems are universal because the causative agent, humans, are known to us. That humans are, or can be subjective, is known and accepted. Economic theorems move from an irrefutable axiom, proceeding logically, to deduce the entire corpus of economics. This is universal because it is the "reality" of our social world.

A proof is not necessary, a counterexample will do. You talk about Euclidean geometry, I have no idea why, but lets stay with that. In Euclidean geometry, a point is defined as...'that which has no part'. This isn't something of the real world is it? Show me that which has no part. Show me where it exists. So a point in the Euclidean context doesn't apply to reality regardless of whether we can draw valid conclusions from the theory.

True. Using EG as an example to illustrate economics was not the best idea.

Now applying logic to social issues, and in this case economic issues has given us the field of economics. But you don't seem to like this. You seem to think you have a 'better logic' than these could come up with, and 'universal principles' that describe 'reality'. From what i've seen, you have nothing of the sort, just a lot of ideas, some of which I think have value, but none of which that is proven correct.

And that is where you are mistaken. The economics that I have argued, is correct, precisely because it is derived from an axiom that are then deduced logically, which results [and must] in true conclusions. They are universal.

Final comment. Prove that 1) We know the cause, 2) that it is ourselves, 3) That we can indeed proceed a priori, 4) that it is a true premise, 5) that we result in a true conclusion, 6) That is it irrefutable.

Let's take it point by point, as, I very much doubt that [a] in a single post I can do justice to all the points you request proofs, and that you will wish to argue specifics. So I'll start with the first point.

1. We know the cause.

First, we would need to agree on what we are seeking to understand. This would require a definition of "economics." Economics undertakes to describe the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services of scarce commodities, by individual human beings.

Obviously contained in that definition, is the "by individual human beings." It is ourselves that we seek to understand. We ourselves are the causative agents of "production, distribution and consumption."

To survive, we must consume. The very basics being water, and food based nutrients. As food is scarce, it classifies as an economic good. As an economic good, we must produce it, and distribute it, so that we may consume it.

It is through our subjective actions, that these outcomes are created. We then are the causative agents. We knowing this to be a true statement, can state it as an axiom. From that axiom we can a priori, deduce using logic, true conclusions.

jog on
duc

 

[ducati998]

Firstly, I think you have forgotten to respond to the first set of my questions. I am hoping you will.

Have I? How remiss of me. You will need to restate them for me, as obviously I have missed them.

Right, but will this Supreme Court be "private" like the lower courts? If not, who will be responsible for nominating and approving the judge candidates? if yes, what will stop the insurance company that is denying Bob his payout from taking over the Supreme Court and thereby perverting the course of justice in Bob's case, as well as future such cases?

Yes it will.

The Supreme Court, will be made up of Judges, rather than using a jury, as appeals that go this far question the "Law" rather than a decision. The decision would, one thinks, hopes, have been based on a correct interpretation of the existing law, so this appeal is questioning the underlying principals of the "Law."

I indicated that the Judges would be selected from all the lower Courts. That they would not have "life appointments," they would be appointed for a year. Their selection, I would like to see as random. All the eligible names are put in a hat, except for currently appointed Judges, and names drawn randomly.

The methodology described will prevent the Insurance Company from gaining undue influence, and thus creating bias and prejudice.

The distinction you draw above is not really important. The point of the matter is that you have just explained to me that the axiom of "property rights" is an axiom in theory only.

Property rights are either an axiom, or they aren't. As it happens, they are an axiom. Thus the law, is derived from an irrefutably true statement. The law so derived will be "Just." Can that law be poorly interpreted by a jury? Sure. Can you have a horribly incompetent Barrister? Sure. This "ought" to give you grounds for appeal, if, the decision reached by the jury is egregious.

In practice, it's really just as open to subjective interpretation as any modern legal principle, as zoning laws, for example, would supersede under certain circumstances (the various quid-pro-quos and provisos you feel you need to insert just offer more evidence of this).

Incorrect.

Zoning laws are an example of Statutory Law. Arbitrary. Created by government. Government has an agenda. That agenda is to grow its "Power" and influence. Thus "Laws" created by government are not based on "Just" or legitimate propositions.

All jury based decisions are subjective. We, cannot escape that. However their subjective decisions should be based on legitimate law, not this distorted monstrosity that government has legislated.

What this tells me is that the answers you provide to my questions in your post #657 are precisely as good as the ones offered by society as it exists today.

Incorrect.

Your recipes are wildly theoretical and you somehow forget to try and test your theories under simple real-life scenarios. They make for funny reading, but, as prescriptions, they just don't measure up.

You are of course free to hold any opinion that you wish. Your opinions are formed and held however on faulty comprehension.

jog on
duc

 

[ducati998]

I would like to add a few things to this list, please...

[vii] declare immediate peace on earth
[viii] make lions and lambs lie down together
[ix] make boy bands like "One Direction" illegal

I can come up with more, but you get the idea... I am amazed that you're not familiar with the available empirical results from experimenting with the principles you have offered above.

I note that you offer no evidence whatsoever, empirical or otherwise.

So let us examine some empirical evidence. The evidence is with regard to the competing theorems of money, viz. gold based, and fiat based.

In the first period, starting 1860, the tremendous inflation was due to the unchecked printing of "greenbacks" to finance the Civil War. After the war ended, the tremendous deflation was the return to a gold standard. After the economy stabilised, gold provided a period of "relative" stability. Gold's price, the price of money, will fluctuate as will any commodity, stability is a chimera, and you do not want prices static, unable to adjust to changing conditions. After 1913, and the implementation of the Federal Reserve System, we again see the effects of a fiat based money.

In seriousness, your discussion with Shakone is interesting and, needless to say, I respectfully disagree with your interpretation and agree with his/hers. When you two are done with your discussion, I would be happy to contribute.

Yes it is.

Which of course is the purpose of argument. To propose and defend different ideas, which, should allow others to make informed decisions as to where the truth lies.

jog on
duc

 

[ducati998]

Duc,

I wish you the best of luck with Atilla and Pat494. I’ve been down this road many times before with them and no matter how logical and factual you present your argument, Atilla and Pat494 will always respond with rambling diatribe and conclude that it is “Socialism that saved Capitalism”.

As far as Atilla is concerned, he would argue that it is wet roads that cause rain, such is his distorted and incomprehensible logic.

The purpose is not to change an entrenched mind to your way of thinking, assuming of course that you are in point of fact correct, it is to present the truth to those sitting on the fence.

Any observer, with half-a-brain can distinguish nonsense, from an articulated point of view. Therefore, simply refute the arguments, if any, put forward. Try to disassociate your ego from the discussion, and concentrate on the arguments presented, or not, as the case maybe, it's far less frustrating.

jog on
duc

 

[ducati998]

Is this not taking us back to cave man era? - Free for all!

Man is a physical and social animal. Even whilst I like the sound of your suggestions above I fear not everyone will adhere to the rules of the environment. Not much different to today.

Just another system to be corrupted if it doesn't tilt in my favour so to speak.

No, not at all. If you follow the discussion that I am currently in with MartinG. you will see that the "Rule of Law" figures heavily in my thinking.

It is precisely that government puts itself above the Rule of Law that inequalities are created and magnified. We have a two tier system. Government and cronies, and the rest of us.

jog on
duc

 

[new_trader]

The purpose is not to change an entrenched mind to your way of thinking, assuming of course that you are in point of fact correct, it is to present the truth to those sitting on the fence.

Any observer, with half-a-brain can distinguish nonsense, from an articulated point of view. Therefore, simply refute the arguments, if any, put forward. Try to disassociate your ego from the discussion, and concentrate on the arguments presented, or not, as the case maybe, its far less frustrating.

jog on
duc

Your ability to do this is highly commendable.

 

[ducati998]

This is a good example and current flavour of the decade. Failure of the financial system is a failure of an unregulated or poorly regulated free market system.

Who is responsible for "regulating?" Government. Why not let the free market regulate the financial system.

Gold coin based money
[ii] 100% reserves on demand deposits.
[iii] Remove the legislative monopoly from government.

Nothing else required. Occam's Law.

The free market system in pursuit of abnormal profits circumvent the very safety controls and checks that are their to keep it safe.

Demonstrate.

I'm afraid there are so many people, institutions and bodies involved its difficult for me to accept the arguments you put forward. .

Well that is unfortunate. Possibly as the argument advances with Shak & MG, you will see the light.

In fact our financial banking services sector were trumpeted as the great evolutionary outcome of our capitalistic free market economies.

It never occurred to you that the politicians who "trumpeted" this great "evolution" might have been wrong [ii] lying [iii] combination of & [ii]

No need to regulate. Even Mr. Greenspan admitted he placed too much faith in the self-correcting power of free markets and had failed to anticipate the self-destructive power of wanton mortgage lending.

Greenspan was a political animal, and remains a political animal. As such, see above.

“Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders’ equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief,” he told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Now 82, Mr. Greenspan came in for one of the harshest grillings of his life, as Democratic lawmakers asked him time and again whether he had been wrong, why he had been wrong and whether he was sorry.

jog on
duc

 

[new_trader]

I note that you offer no evidence whatsoever, empirical or otherwise.

So let us examine some empirical evidence. The evidence is with regard to the competing theorems of money, viz. gold based, and fiat based.

In the first period, starting 1860, the tremendous inflation was due to the unchecked printing of "greenbacks" to finance the Civil War. After the war ended, the tremendous deflation was the return to a gold standard. After the economy stabilised, gold provided a period of "relative" stability. Gold's price, the price of money, will fluctuate as will any commodity, stability is a chimera, and you do not want prices static, unable to adjust to changing conditions. After 1913, and the implementation of the Federal Reserve System, we again see the effects of a fiat based money.

Can I also add, that gold (specie) standard critics mistake 'good' deflation (where prices gradually fall due to productivity increasing faster than the money supply) with recession/depression.

 

[ducati998]

Your ability to do this is highly commendable.

Ta.

Give it a try, your blood pressure will drop.

jog on
duc

 

[ducati998]

Can I also add, that gold (specie) standard critics mistake 'good' deflation (where prices gradually fall due to productivity increasing faster than the money supply) with recession/depression.

This is true enough, largely because of the myriad of definitions held by individuals. Inflation/Deflation is the expansion/contraction of money and credit.

As such, a fall in prices due to increased production, with a given demand, will result in lower prices. This, by my definition, is not deflation.

If however, prices fell, due to the contraction of the money or credit supply, due to the increased value of money, viz. with a given demand, supply contracts, then the price of money rises, then this would classify as a "deflationary" episode, as exchange ratios of goods to money would fall.

Definitions, and especially faulty ones, can really complicate an understanding of ideas and arguments, which places people in intransigent positions, which usually degenerates into ad hominems due to frustration.

jog on
duc

 

[Atilla]

Actually, I believe you are correct: theorem is actually the correct term.

I would now accept this, based on the definitions.

I already did, but you didn't understand.

I agree, mathematics, is not applicable to the social sciences, and have already stated that. Which is why subjective "theorems," the "Theorem of Money," for example, are true, and are universal. It is so because the theorems are based upon ourselves, we are the "causative" agents.

Money is a creation of man. Nothing universal about money. Man was around before creation of money. Animals have no requirement for money yet they exist naturally.

Have I misunderstood what is universal?

Money can be removed from the our socio-poli-economic system if a new one can be conjured up as in no doubt it will one day.

Do they have money on Star Trek?




The real world of what? Physical sciences, or the real world in which we interact, the world, which, due to our being human, we have created? I am, with economics, referring to the latter, and, the theorems of economics are universal as they relate to economic interactions, involving us, humans.

We have determined the interactions among us yes but created nothing. Slapdash development based on confrontation and survival. Theorems of economics are universal - is simply a grandiose statement of no meaning.



If we are arguing the physical world and physical sciences, I have already made that point, and therefore, agree. However, where I disagree is within the social sciences, where, the causative agent is ourselves. In this case, the theorems of economics are universal. ????



Indeed. But that is not refuting Euclidean geometry, that is relaxing, or ignoring postulates of EG, which then "allows" NEG. However, NEG, is based on, or derives from EG axioms. So, does NEG "really" refute EG? I'm not enough of a mathematician to argue whether or not that is the case. However, your "point" doesn't hold as much water as you suggest.





Which begs the question: what is the real world of which we speak? My error of course was to wander off into areas of epistemology that do not apply to the topic at hand, which is economic. Mathematics, as we agree, is wholly illegitimate when applied to economic phenomena. No it's not. There is quantitative economics or econometrics which attempts to measure what if scenarios. At price y, demand x, suppy x+1 etc etc. One can apply mathematics to economics. Have I got the wrong end of the stick ???





The point remaining, on which we disagree, is the "unversality" of economic theorems. As when we discuss the physical sciences, I essentially agree, leaving only the social sciences, economics being the most developed of these, where we seemingly currently disagree.

Economic theorems are universal because the causative agent, humans, are known to us. That humans are, or can be subjective, is known and accepted. Economic theorems move from an irrefutable axiom, proceeding logically, to deduce the entire corpus of economics. This is universal because it is the "reality" of our social world.

Economic theorems are normative opinions of people. Like cultures they change and adapt. Nothing universal about them. Economics is not a positive science. I've never heard of economics described as universal theorem before?




True. Using EG as an example to illustrate economics was not the best idea.



And that is where you are mistaken. The economics that I have argued, is correct, precisely because it is derived from an axiom that are then deduced logically, which results [and must] in true conclusions. They are universal.
I have trouble comprehending this and what is a true conclusion in economics. To get top 10 economists into a single room and get them to agree on a true conclusion has got to be a miracle if I may say so. When I see that I'll believe God exists.




Let's take it point by point, as, I very much doubt that [a] in a single post I can do justice to all the points you request proofs, and that you will wish to argue specifics. So I'll start with the first point.

1. We know the cause.

First, we would need to agree on what we are seeking to understand. This would require a definition of "economics." Economics undertakes to describe the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services of scarce commodities, by individual human beings.Distribution o fthe cake is an economic/political decision. In the history of life on earth there is one universal truth among all species and that is some pigs are more equal than others. This is why the female lion does the work hunting and the male takes the best part and leaves the rest. I can't see Queen Elizabeth or Prince William foreaging for food. So when we say economics is the allocation and distribution of scarce resources one must really consider the social hierarchy. Now this is a universal truth even in primates - although money is not.

Obviously contained in that definition, is the "by individual human beings." It is ourselves that we seek to understand. We ourselves are the causative agents of "production, distribution and consumption."

To survive, we must consume. The very basics being water, and food based nutrients. As food is scarce, it classifies as an economic good. As an economic good, we must produce it, and distribute it, so that we may consume it. My take is that everything is a commodity. However, air and water is so free in supply that it is not an economic good. I guess it depends on ones location. The same would apply to food for the Red Indians and herd of buffalo before they were wiped out by the white man and replaced with his money based so called advanced civilisation.

It is through our subjective actions, that these outcomes are created. We then are the causative agents. We knowing this to be a true statement, can state it as an axiom. From that axiom we can a priori, deduce using logic, true conclusions.

jog on
duc

Teach a parrot the words Supply and Demand, one can make an economist out of it. I'm afraid I'm lost with all these universal theorems and with due respect to me it sounds like big words with little or no real meaning.

 

[Atilla]

No, not at all. If you follow the discussion that I am currently in with MartinG. you will see that the "Rule of Law" figures heavily in my thinking.

It is precisely that government puts itself above the Rule of Law that inequalities are created and magnified. We have a two tier system. Government and cronies, and the rest of us.

jog on
duc

Yes that is also a very interesting thread I'm following and learning a lot from.

However, I don't have much faith in free markets or big private companies following rule of law.

You asked for one example and here is a recent one...
Thalidomide birth defects caused by morning sickness drug. Basically, drug companies have to balance the need to test drugs against safety and side effects. If not for regulation and strict controls the profit motive will over-ride safety. Given big money, I have very little or no faith justice will prevail or even now whether it does on people who have been impacted.

If not for government legislation this scenario would be far worse with unthinkable consequences. Many companies even if they do go to the wall will have made millions/billions before any justice is served.

 

[Martinghoul]

Have I? How remiss of me. You will need to restate them for me, as obviously I have missed them.

This was it:

Nothing at all. With free entry to the market, there will be competition. The Court taken over by the Insurance company, if it starts to simply rubber-stamp decisions based on prejudice, will soon lose all confidence and trust, and will be shunned.

Right, but I am not really interested in what happens "soon". I am interested in what happens in this case to Bob's and his missing testicle. Are you suggesting that, in this particular circumstance a miscarriage of justice may occur solely and purely as a result of the design of the "private judiciary"? Moreover, are you suggesting (or I could have misinterpreted) that such a miscarriage of justice is "acceptable", because it's sporadic and will tend to vanish in the limit, so to speak?

Yes it will.

The Supreme Court, will be made up of Judges, rather than using a jury, as appeals that go this far question the "Law" rather than a decision. The decision would, one thinks, hopes, have been based on a correct interpretation of the existing law, so this appeal is questioning the underlying principals of the "Law."

I indicated that the Judges would be selected from all the lower Courts. That they would not have "life appointments," they would be appointed for a year. Their selection, I would like to see as random. All the eligible names are put in a hat, except for currently appointed Judges, and names drawn randomly.

The methodology described will prevent the Insurance Company from gaining undue influence, and thus creating bias and prejudice.

Will it? But, quite clearly, the judges are all products of the lower courts that, undoubtedly, have been taken over by the various private sector entities. Why should they suddenly change their respective allegiances upon promotion to the Supreme Court? Suppose for a moment that all the lower courts have been taken over by different insurance companies? Would that not virtually guarantee no justice for Bob (and his missing testicle)?

Property rights are either an axiom, or they aren't. As it happens, they are an axiom. Thus the law, is derived from an irrefutably true statement. The law so derived will be "Just." Can that law be poorly interpreted by a jury? Sure. Can you have a horribly incompetent Barrister? Sure. This "ought" to give you grounds for appeal, if, the decision reached by the jury is egregious.

It doesn't really matter what term you use to describe the legal principle at the heart of the system. The point that you're ignoring is that the principle isn't important here. What is important is that, to arrive at the actual enforceable law, the principle is interpreted by someone or someones. No matter how noble a principle you design to lie at the heart of your system, the ultimate implementation is what matters. I mean take any religion, for example. "Thou shalt not kill" etc are hardly a bad set of "Axioms" (I hope you'd agree) and they've been around for a good long time. And yet, we're not quite residing in a perfect Christian heaven.

Incorrect.

Zoning laws are an example of Statutory Law. Arbitrary. Created by government. Government has an agenda. That agenda is to grow its "Power" and influence. Thus "Laws" created by government are not based on "Just" or legitimate propositions.

All jury based decisions are subjective. We, cannot escape that. However their subjective decisions should be based on legitimate law, not this distorted monstrosity that government has legislated.

What Statutory Law? What Government? We are examining a case where there is no government and no Statutory Law, as this was the design that you have specified. In the case we have discussed, the community of town residents is imposing its will on you and preventing you from exercising the Axiom of Private Property, i.e. disposing of it the way your heart desires (building a nuclear waste treatment plant). I chose a term "Zoning Laws" ('cause that's kinda what it is), which you're clearly unhappy with. Let's forget my term and call it the "People Do Not Want a Nuclear Waste Treatment Plant Built In Town" Law. You have stated in your previous posts that this is a perfectly viable situation within the framework you have defined and isn't a result of a poor interpretation of the law by the jury or poor efforts by your Barrister. Is this not therefore a perfectly legitimate case of what I have described in my post as the Axiom being superseded? And if an Axiom can be superseded under certain circumstances (as determined by a viable jury), what sort of an Axiom is it?

Incorrect.

You are of course free to hold any opinion that you wish. Your opinions are formed and held however on faulty comprehension.

jog on
duc

I beg to differ. So far, you have not demonstrated any specific logical errors or inconsistencies in my reasoning.

 

[Atilla]

Who is responsible for "regulating?" Government. Why not let the free market regulate the financial system.

Elections.

Gold coin based money
[ii] 100% reserves on demand deposits.
[iii] Remove the legislative monopoly from government.

i & ii I'm ok with iii I'm struggling on. For example German government I admire. Greek / Italians I'd shy away from. Purely, based on current environment we find our selves in.

Nothing else required. Occam's Law.






Demonstrate.
Drugs manufacture. Need to test against need to bring to market to may profits.




Well that is unfortunate. Possibly as the argument advances with Shak & MG, you will see the light.





It never occurred to you that the politicians who "trumpeted" this great "evolution" might have been wrong [ii] lying [iii] combination of & [ii]

It wasn't just politicians. It was the complete and total free market economy. Whether in the US or UK who could argue against the financial supremecy of the industry. Nothing to suggest they were wrong either but that salaries and greed of bankers got ahead of the greater public interest. I dare not mention social conscience as it doesn't rest well with capitalist doctrine. ie Bank bonuses compared to minimum wage - live and let live approach to a balanced life.


Greenspan was a political animal, and remains a political animal. As such, see above.
Yes and he was also master of the universe during the good times. Big chief of the free market world...

“Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders’ equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief,” he told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Now 82, Mr. Greenspan came in for one of the harshest grillings of his life, as Democratic lawmakers asked him time and again whether he had been wrong, why he had been wrong and whether he was sorry.

jog on
duc

.