Best Thread Keynes Vs. Hayek
What exactly is that definition?
As you have raised the issue, you can now provide the definitions that science provides, and the common definition. Are they the same, or different? That you mention both, suggests that possibly they are different.
Essentially you are simply playing semantic games. This would suggest that you do not actually have legitimate arguments with which to invalidate or refute my arguments.
jog on
duc
Shakone
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,460
- Likes
- 665
Ducati, philosphical ideas debated for the sake if it, have no truth for the real world, they are not applicable as fact or irrefutable, they are just thought experiments which may or may not be useful as a tool, just as mathematics is a tool which may or may not be useful to to real life problems, and I refer you to the quote I originally gave. It hasn't landed yet.
As a philosophical idea, you can reach whatever conclusion you like. I can conclude God exists, I can conclude God doesn't. Can we have things that are both true and false at the same time? In reality, why not. In a theory, it depends. No point trying to argue the case either way regarding God, which is why it is not necessary to go through each step, and I suggested you lay out the entire theory. Because then we can decide if it's useful as a tool. And because you refuse to reach any sort of common ground on language. I have tried to reach this, you should be aware of this. It does not matter to me whether we call what you're talking about Humans, and the coma, the non-choosers and the mentally diseased we call Humons (or any other word), or the reverse, it's just important that we don't use the same word when referring to different things. However, for others reading, who haven't followed, the dictionary definition of humans would be more apt (my opinion) and you choose a term for what you're referring to.
I have learned long ago, that jargon is unnecessary if you understand what you are talking about. And usually it obfuscates the issue, or the person doesn't really understand the concept and uses jargon as a shield to hide behind. This is not you, but you are complicating the issue (my opinion) whether you realise it or not. I have long been a holder of the view
I am not the one playing semantic games, I believe you are. You have not made an argument yet. You have made some ssumpitons which are unclear in their meaning. I already gave you the common dictionary definition of humans, yet you ask for it. You can look in a dictionary, or read my post. If you don't know what Homo Sapiens are, again, you can look in the dictionary and find out. See the benefit of plain speaking in common dictionary words yet? Rather than having to ask every single post what the other person might mean, you can find what they mean in a short time.
The population of humans on earth is approaching 7 billion. What about the people you are talking about? Do they exist? How many of them are there? Are they on Earth? Are they also part of the human race? What are they called?
Anyway, have a good weekend
As a philosophical idea, you can reach whatever conclusion you like. I can conclude God exists, I can conclude God doesn't. Can we have things that are both true and false at the same time? In reality, why not. In a theory, it depends. No point trying to argue the case either way regarding God, which is why it is not necessary to go through each step, and I suggested you lay out the entire theory. Because then we can decide if it's useful as a tool. And because you refuse to reach any sort of common ground on language. I have tried to reach this, you should be aware of this. It does not matter to me whether we call what you're talking about Humans, and the coma, the non-choosers and the mentally diseased we call Humons (or any other word), or the reverse, it's just important that we don't use the same word when referring to different things. However, for others reading, who haven't followed, the dictionary definition of humans would be more apt (my opinion) and you choose a term for what you're referring to.
I have learned long ago, that jargon is unnecessary if you understand what you are talking about. And usually it obfuscates the issue, or the person doesn't really understand the concept and uses jargon as a shield to hide behind. This is not you, but you are complicating the issue (my opinion) whether you realise it or not. I have long been a holder of the view
Feynman would say you should be able to explain to a 6 year-old. That's a stretch, but you get the point. Common words, plain speaking, no jargon, where definitions are not your definitions or that persons definitions, but the common (majority) definition that I can if in doubt within seconds look up in a dictionary. Can you do this? If not, then we're at an impasse.
I am not the one playing semantic games, I believe you are. You have not made an argument yet. You have made some ssumpitons which are unclear in their meaning. I already gave you the common dictionary definition of humans, yet you ask for it. You can look in a dictionary, or read my post. If you don't know what Homo Sapiens are, again, you can look in the dictionary and find out. See the benefit of plain speaking in common dictionary words yet? Rather than having to ask every single post what the other person might mean, you can find what they mean in a short time.
The population of humans on earth is approaching 7 billion. What about the people you are talking about? Do they exist? How many of them are there? Are they on Earth? Are they also part of the human race? What are they called?
Anyway, have a good weekend
Last edited:
Atilla
Legendary member
- Messages
- 20,856
- Likes
- 4,033
I think we had this some time ago.
Along came an organised work force with central decision making body and enforced their view on everyone else who did not submit to their view..
I think they were called Romans who introduced civilisation to the Barbarians.
Already been tried and tested as this is how life began and evolved to what we have today.
If you pursue your arguments to the n'th degree you'll come to the conclusion that better organisation and unification is the successful model over isolation, individualism, freedom etc., call it what you will.
Club together and beat the **** out of anything different are in humans DNA. No amount of theory or assumptions will change that. We have millions of years of history and evolution to back it up. Some will kill you for wearing the wrong colour football shirt, do you think they are going to stop at a piece of paper declaring human rights?
I can just imagine a farmer waving his property deeds of paper at Atillas' huns or at Roman centurions.
The winners will once again be the biggest and bravest who take risks and can enforce their view. You may choose to call this private insurance or judicial courts but I can see how they may well be contested based on your other bloggs. I can just imagine big surge in demand for the Mafia - the new legitimised face of free market capitalism based on a new set of pyscho-socio-political-economics.
Nightmare scenario.
You are aware that private armies and security firms are on the increase? Some call them private military contractors, security firms or armies. Check out Blackwater. So instead of showing up as spending on military budgets - numbers show up as investment in companies. How wonderful. In the absence of government I doubt any firm, contractor or private body would be strong enough to take on these "Institutions". Does anyone remember any Blackwater security official facing disciplinary charges (as they do if one is a marine in the army)? No.
You should be careful what you wish for?
My view is instead of scrapping government we need to fix it by taking out big private vested interests that corrupt and bend politicians. Capitalism and greed and working 10 hour days has a lot to do with the way life is going today.
Incorrect.
Philosophy, has everything to do with seeking truth for the real world.
Metaphysics deals with God and faith. That is not what we are arguing. We are engaged in an epistemological argument. Totally different.
In fact, your example above is so erroneous, I question your motives.
When I started, I had a very simple starting point: you then proceeded to muddy the water with semantic drivel. You wanted to account for every micro-second of time, classify those who were acting, from those who were not.
Well, you have got your argument. The only thing is, now you don't want the argument, because, essentially, apart from some semantic quibbles, you have nothing to say.
Which is fine, and as already stated, I was proceeding along that line, until, you decided to argue contentious philosophical issues. If you didn't want jargon, then you should not have introduced it should you.
Let me restate my initial propositions:
No jargon there. Simple. Concise. But then, the objections, made by yourself, started to flood-in, every micro-increment of time to be accounted for, coma victims, etc. Extreme hairsplitting.
This necessitated a defence. The defence, necessitated moving into philosophical areas and issues that are still contentious today. Now you are crying about jargon.
The point really is: you have nothing to say that is of any real value in offering a legitimate criticism of the propositions to date. You are trying to obfuscate this fact through endless words that essentially say nothing.
Yours is simply a strategy of attrition, very common on forums such as these, in the hope that frustration, with having to deal with endless minor and irrelevant quibbles lets you off the hook.
I have reproduced all the propositions to date, excluding the last, which goes to a definition of "human" or "homo sapiens." I have made three propositions [arguments] to date. You claim that they are assumptions. The difference is significant. I claim that they are self-evident, which, if you challenge, I will prove. You have challenged them on the basis of time and "exceptions" which, is your coma patient. Hence, the digression, but it is of your own making.
For you to claim otherwise, is simply dishonest.
The dictionary definition, refers to, both "mind" and "body" which brings us right back to the philosophical arguments.
You see...drivel.
You claim that you are not responsible for instigating semantic nonsense. Above, is simply another example.
Really, you have no argument. As this is a "trading forum" I will provide you with a trading analogy. You are the trader who has taken a market position, with a trading plan, and when the market turns against that position, simply cannot admit that the position, according to the original plan, is wrong.
You are hanging on, hoping that time will save you, that the market will turn in your favour. Well, its not going to. Your analysis and position are wrong. You however cannot execute that stop loss.
jog on
duc
I think we had this some time ago.
Along came an organised work force with central decision making body and enforced their view on everyone else who did not submit to their view..
I think they were called Romans who introduced civilisation to the Barbarians.
Already been tried and tested as this is how life began and evolved to what we have today.
And, what exactly, happened to the Roman Empire. Then, assuming you know the answer, which I'm sure you do, answer, why?
Correct.
Economics provides the correct attribution for this fact. It is the "Division of Labour." The division of labour promotes co-operation, as, more can be produced through specialization, than individual self-sufficiency.
Trace this backwards, and forwards, and what ideology accounts correctly for this? Oh, its "Capitalism" fancy that. If you disagree, then define Socialism, and account for how they produce either products, or society.
Anarchy simply means without "government" which is the "State." It does not mean without "Law" or without "Punishment" or without a means of enforcement. It means that these [goods] and services can be provided in another way, viz. the "free market."
Really, how?
Whose military budgets might those be?
Why is that? Government exemption?
Which is exactly what Corporatism is. Which is exactly what we have today.
jog on
duc
Atilla
Legendary member
- Messages
- 20,856
- Likes
- 4,033
Markets are imperfect. Capitalism is based on incorrect assumptions which have no basis in the real economy.
We have mixed systems command and free market economy.
In summary I hold the view systems need to be improved. Not replaced with another failing one. Better to evolve than re-invent.
There, exactly is the source of all you error: corporatism is not capitalism [ii] there are no free market failures.
We have already looked at the most commonly cited example, viz. monopoly. That you have zero idea with regard to monopoly, has been now made abundantly clear to me. But hell, if you wish to cite the other usual suspects, or god forbid, one of your own, I'm game.
With regard to the Roman question...historians, are quite commonly acknowledging the reason for the fall of Rome to be....wait for it...inflation.
jog on
duc
Atilla
Legendary member
- Messages
- 20,856
- Likes
- 4,033
Corporatism, capitalism or socialism and good few other ism's are all a bit of a fad really. All about taking ownership and possessing people in what ever way you want to achieve some utopia ending. To state someone who does not agree with your views knows zero about monopoly is very rich indeed.
Whether the Romans over extended or over spent is neither here or there. Empires rise and fall. Path is pretty much the same. That inflation explanation is not common either. Just another aspect to look at when financing wars. Doesn't say much about the Eastern empire which carried on for good many more centuries long after the West declined. Or why bribes were paid to their enemies? Or even why they had to maintain such large armies if enemies were paid off?
I can see this is going nowhere fast.
A fad. That's what you come up with as your analysis and argument.
It is about ownership, viz. property rights.
It is not that you don't agree, it is that you simply cannot actually address the arguments presented in any rational or coherent manner. All that I conclude is either: you simply do not have the knowledge or capability to engage or [ii] you purposefully want to distract, introduce propaganda, or deliberately mislead.
I opted for as it seemed kinder.
If you wish to prove me wrong, rather than simply opining, here is a single issue starting point.
jog on
duc
L
Liquid validity
Which positive examples of no government do you have in mind?
The only examples that immediately spring to my mind are negative:
Somalia.
Columbia.
Ok more accurately, they are examples of no effective govt.
Surely that is not too far removed from no govt.
I can't see how Columbia and Somalia would drastically change without any govt.
The point I am making is:
No government usually leads to violent power struggles, not efficient free markets.
I can't think of a single modern example of no government being a positive.
For that matter I struggle to think of any historical examples either.
A power vacuum is always filled by something or someone.
That is essentially a form of governance, even if it is violent, brutal and dictatorial.
Surely you mean limited govt. as opposed to no govt?
At least with limited govt. there are good examples - Monaco for one.
Although the Monaco model could not be applied in
many other places - wealth is a barrier to entry.
Its that barrier to entry that makes the limited govt. model work in Monaco,
not the limited govt itself.
That pretty much leaves most other countries with no option other than
some form of govt.
Shakone
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,460
- Likes
- 665
You believe it is me that is hair splitting. The reason I point out to you that your arguments don't apply in every second, and don't apply to every human, is because when they don't apply every second and to every human the resulting conclusions - if they ever arrived - would then not apply unquestionably across all people and all times. The fact that you continue to argue this, and refuse to accept it and continue the logical process, indicates that you yourself know it is not hair-splitting because it is of enough import for you to refuse to move on while it stands. That's not hairsplitting, that's crucial. To you, to your argument.
What you quoted prior to this response is clearly a question. What are the humans you're talking about? Do they have any relation to humans on earth? You have given no real definition. The fact it gets this response indicates your general attitude. Which has now become poor. Until now the discussion has been polite. You have now become rude, rather than answer some very simple questions. Frustration that you cannot explain things simply perhaps. As you taught me, time constraint requires that a choice be made. And, as in your analogy, rudeness is my signal to get out of the trade.
So good luck with your future trading and arguments.
What you quoted prior to this response is clearly a question. What are the humans you're talking about? Do they have any relation to humans on earth? You have given no real definition. The fact it gets this response indicates your general attitude. Which has now become poor. Until now the discussion has been polite. You have now become rude, rather than answer some very simple questions. Frustration that you cannot explain things simply perhaps. As you taught me, time constraint requires that a choice be made. And, as in your analogy, rudeness is my signal to get out of the trade.
So good luck with your future trading and arguments.
Last edited:
Martinghoul
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,691
- Likes
- 277
Sorry, while I find the last post where you responded to my question in our previous discussion, duc, let me ask you something about the above...
I find myself intensely curious about the "solid theory" behind some of the items above. The most interesting bit is items [v] (both of them). I confess that I find myself somewhat disappointed that you include them, given that I figured you for a full-on "free markets" kind of guy/girl.
Which of course means then:
That your objection above is without merit.
You can't have it both ways. You either accept the "dictionary" definition, or, you have to move into the philosophical areas that argue precisely these points, which you were objecting to in your previous post.
So, let me repeat again...
Clearly from the context of my arguments it is clear that I am not talking about your suggested sub-class. I am talking about humans, homo sapiens.
Of course. Which is why we move to this.
Or did you simply forget what you had written previously?
Your problem is that you can't seemingly even remember your own arguments. Initially "humons" were going to constitute a sub-class that were non-actors/choosers/etc. Why would I talk about them? I am seeking to establish a theory that describes reality.
Seemingly, you want to endlessly quibble about a sub-class, that have no further relevance. That is hairsplitting.
As already demonstrated, your questions are irrelevant and a waste of time. The only purpose in pursuing the question further is to enter a philosophical argument over what constitutes "human" which you have already indicated that you do not wish.
You wanted a dictionary based discussion with regard to what is considered to be human. Note that you dictionary based definition is dualistic. This of course suits me perfectly as that is my position.
Any excuse eh?
jog on
duc
Item [v] Eliminate fractional reserve lending. 100% reserving.
This is the easiest condition to put into place. Fractional reserve lending is responsible for the huge creation of credit, which is fiduciary media. 100% reserving removes the ability of the banks to violate the demand deposit contract, and eliminates the fractional reserve lending base on which they rely.
With only the ability to create loans based on "time deposits" 100% reserving allows loans, but eliminates the ability to leverage that lending base.
This is exactly the free market under the Rule of Law. Banks are not exempt from the law. They must adhere to the law on the same basis as everyone. Fractional reserve lending of demand deposits is an exemption from the law granted by government.
jog on
duc
Martinghoul
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,691
- Likes
- 277
Right, I see, so you're for free markets, but only up to a certain arbitrary point?
So if free market lenders find it to their economic advantage to engage in lending well beyond their "lending base" (which they inevitably will, as they have in the past), "the law" is going to prevent them? What if, gasp, a lender decides to circulate a paper currency? There's gonna have to be a law against that as well, I guess? And this is what you're referring to as a "free market"? Furthermore, who, pray tell, will be enforcing these rules and examining the banks' books to make sure they don't step over the line?
I have to say I am rather amused that, in the end, all this "free market" talk of yours is nothing but talk. You want to regulate and enforce as much as anyone else. Such a difficult contradiction this must be for your worldview! I don't know how I'd cope...
Last edited:
Martinghoul
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,691
- Likes
- 277
So what entity will be doing the "looking"? What entity, in your private judiciary, is going to have the responsibility and power to make sure that the Supreme Court doesn't get taken over by private interests, either explicitly or under the table? And you didn't come back to me on whether the Supreme Court is a participant in the private justice market, i.e. whether it can be taken over?
I am afraid that I cannot share your "it really won't be a problem" attitude. It's reasonably easy for me to imagine all sorts of ways the incumbents can prevent "free entry" into the market.
This is rather shocking. Pls tell me you didn't say this, as this is in glaring contradiction to basic rules of first-order logic.
Why does the reason for me building it matter? Suppose I did it to exercise the principle of ownership of my private property, no more, no less...
Yes, and so they have...
Right, so is this not what I said? My property right violated another's property right and was superseded. Does this, yet again, not demonstrate that "property rights" aren't absolute? Indeed, my ability to exercise my property rights, as I have demonstrated, depends on external factors and therefore cannot be considered an "axiom".
Atilla
Legendary member
- Messages
- 20,856
- Likes
- 4,033
Duc - hate to put it to you but yes your ideas are a fad along with all the other "isms".
You are too self indulgent and reluctant to consider anything else but your own one track view imho.
There is nothing universal about economics just simply one of many other discipline in study of everything else on our planet... You can apply it to politics, theory of logic and even philosophy but then wonder why you get into a muddle. I'm sure it all makes sense to you but I'm also sure so did sun worship and human sacrifice made sense to the Aztec's. They may have asked you why you need gold and shown you where to find it.
Yes you do split hairs.
Historians will can provide you with many explanations re: rise and fall of the Roman Empire but you are likely to reject them picking your own special factor irrespective of arguments put to you because it helps in with selling your point.
You bang your drum about communism and socialism state owning all property and talking much about property rights, but enforcing those rights are effectively fad systems. It can be changed by force at the end of the day and there is nothing universal about those rights. No force, no property. I reckon I can build a very strong argument for it. One only has to look at Israel and the Palestinian land and home grab.
Some very stupid religious nuts - on both sides, think God has given them this land. Argue that one to death with your private judicial courts. I would like to see you try and enforce it too.
All systems and isms are all exactly that - a fad! Hate to burst your bubble as much as you may not like simplification of your grandoise argument is nothing but flavour of the decade.
USSR changed and so did China. So is Latin America. I don't see many revolutionaries anymore do you? You may say well that's because free market works but question is one of degree. I agree in that it is far superior to a command economy too.
You can draw all the curves and lines and use all your assumptions about minimum wage but contrary to all popullar arguments, it is now well supported and deemed to be a success. Even by people who argued against it. Don't see anyone complaining - do you?
Can you explain excessive bonus and executive pay? How is it that they come about in our free market economies? But ofcourse, we don't have a free market economy but a monopoly government that determines everything. And did you categorise that one as corporatism too?
I put to you free markets are imperfect by the very nature of man and man must be regulated collectively. Systems, governments and isms fad's tap into this aspect of man and attempt to explain and control.
In my honest opinion I feel you need a sense of proportion and perspective in your arguments. But that is simply my opinion. I may be wrong and you can be right if you want to. :cheesy:
Martinghoul
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,691
- Likes
- 277
But you see, duc, this is the beauty of my position. I am not making categorical statements or offering a competing paradigm. I don't have to provide evidence or prove anything. I just have to provide counterexamples to disprove your assertions.
As to the examination of evidence, this is sorely lacking. What sort of logic enables you to look at two coincident events and conclude causation? It's precisely as valid as me stating that everything you see in the years that follow 1913 is due to the publication of the very first crossword puzzle. Furthermore, the US remained on the gold standard until the Great Depression (with a brief suspension), so it's not entirely clear how you're able to see "the effect of fiat based money" on the chart. Further yet, the Federal Reserve was around in the late 1920 and early 1930s, so, quite clearly, if it affects inflation, it can do so in either direction. In general, I am again rather surprised that you offer up something like this chart as "empirical evidence".
Note: this is a response to post #729 on page 92. I don't know how to include the chart in the quote.
Similar threads
- Article
