Hazlitt's Battle With Bretton Woods: "The Austrians were right"
-
josda1000 wrote:
What's that have to do with being socialist?
I was just pointing that out to him, since CG is such a devout socialist.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
That point did not get across... but yeah.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.I'm a socialist ? Really ? Do you really think that my viewpoints come down to one convenient, reductionist label ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
josda1000 wrote:
What's that have to do with being socialist?
I was just pointing that out to him, since CG is such a devout socialist.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
I know you're incapable of nuanced thought, or any thought that's not spoon fed to you, but, really, the more you make statements like this about me, the more ignorant you look. And you're really stretching the limits of how stupid one person can make themselves appear.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
I'm a socialist ? Really ? Do you really think that my viewpoints come down to one convenient, reductionist label ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
A lot of it does, yes. You and I have debated on every single point, totally in disagreement. What can we agree on? You tell me, I may not know better.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.josda1000 wrote:
What can we agree on? You tell me, I may not know better.
I suspect we agree on some aspects of welfare. I think it should exist, but think it needs to be controlled and limited more, and support work for the dole programs, for example. Australia's welfare system is more out of control than yours. I am more a capitalist than a socialist. I have a more nuanced view than taking the play book of one ideology and agreeing with it all 100%.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
josda1000 wrote:
What can we agree on? You tell me, I may not know better.
I suspect we agree on some aspects of welfare. I think it should exist, but think it needs to be controlled and limited more, and support work for the dole programs, for example. Australia's welfare system is more out of control than yours. I am more a capitalist than a socialist. I have a more nuanced view than taking the play book of one ideology and agreeing with it all 100%.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
That's true, I think you are about capitalism to some extent. But I don't think you get the true nature of, what I call, real capitalism, as opposed to corporatism, which is what you and I are actually both against.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
riced wrote:
I wonder what's so compelling about a gold standard? Why not a copper standard, or an iron standard. After all they are just commodities like gold.
I think that, to any Austrian, any metal would do wonders compared to paper, or beans as you suggested:
riced wrote:
I can see good reasons for it not be a commodity like e.g. broad beans
The thing is that with paper or beans (or grain or whatever), they are much easier to destroy AND create, therefore causing uncertainty in the market. If you were to use elemental metal (as opposed to steel, for example), you simply can not create it out of thin air. One must find it in the earth, or trade for it. And it can not be destroyed. It can be lost, but not destroyed. This is the principle. There's a difference in definition: capital is a buildup of wealth/value that varies compared to the total supply of capital in the system. Money is a buildup of wealth/value that cannot be destroyed.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.josda1000 wrote:
And it can not be destroyed. It can be lost, but not destroyed.
And the difference is? Suppose, for example, that a ship carrying a significant proportion of the gold stock sank in mid Atlantic so the gold was irretrievably lost. Wouldn't that be the same as it being destroyed? What if the gold in Fort Knox was subjected to such a high level of radiation that it could not be accessed (shades of Goldfinger)?
josda1000 wrote:
There's a difference in definition: capital is a buildup of wealth/value that varies compared to the total supply of capital in the system. Money is a buildup of wealth/value that cannot be destroyed.
Don't understand this. I thought capital is a stock of assets used in production; money is a commodity used as a means of exchange. Money is also used as a measure of value, so the capital stock has a money value. The amount of capital (i.e. the size of the stock) depends on the rates of investment and depreciation. If the commodity used as money is perishable then it can be destoyed
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
-
That's true, I think you are about capitalism to some extent. But I don't think you get the true nature of, what I call, real capitalism, as opposed to corporatism, which is what you and I are actually both against.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.Yes, I'd agree that we probably agree more about the problems, than we do the solutions.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
According to CSS, gold has magical powers. Or something.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Especially if ring shaped and in the possession of Hobbits or dwarfs. :-D
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
-
josda1000 wrote:
And it can not be destroyed. It can be lost, but not destroyed.
And the difference is? Suppose, for example, that a ship carrying a significant proportion of the gold stock sank in mid Atlantic so the gold was irretrievably lost. Wouldn't that be the same as it being destroyed? What if the gold in Fort Knox was subjected to such a high level of radiation that it could not be accessed (shades of Goldfinger)?
josda1000 wrote:
There's a difference in definition: capital is a buildup of wealth/value that varies compared to the total supply of capital in the system. Money is a buildup of wealth/value that cannot be destroyed.
Don't understand this. I thought capital is a stock of assets used in production; money is a commodity used as a means of exchange. Money is also used as a measure of value, so the capital stock has a money value. The amount of capital (i.e. the size of the stock) depends on the rates of investment and depreciation. If the commodity used as money is perishable then it can be destoyed
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
riced wrote:
And the difference is? Suppose, for example, that a ship carrying a significant proportion of the gold stock sank in mid Atlantic so the gold was irretrievably lost. Wouldn't that be the same as it being destroyed? What if the gold in Fort Knox was subjected to such a high level of radiation that it could not be accessed (shades of Goldfinger)?
lol What if. How often does this kind of thing happen? Gold did get plunged to the bottom of the oceans a lot at one point, yes. But it can be retrieved. Dollars can burn, get ripped up, anything, and it's worthless. Period. Gold on the other hand, if retrieved from the ocean, retains its value. As for radiation, well, I'm not that kind of scientist lol
riced wrote:
I thought capital is a stock of assets used in production; money is a commodity used as a means of exchange. Money is also used as a measure of value, so the capital stock has a money value. The amount of capital (i.e. the size of the stock) depends on the rates of investment and depreciation. If the commodity used as money is perishable then it can be destoyed
I'd say all of this is true, except with a slight problem with the last sentence. If the commodity is perishable, it is only capital stock, and not money, because of the fact that it can be destroyed. This is not the usual definition of money, true. But it's a good way to think of it. If you can destroy your money, was it money to begin with? Why value it in terms of itself, if you burn it? Money has to have a definitive value. Capital is just a means of exchange with some kind of value. So if you have tuna for example, and you eat it, why would you define it in terms of itself? The capital itself is now gone. So it is definitely not money, if the capital stock is now decremented by one.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
riced wrote:
And the difference is? Suppose, for example, that a ship carrying a significant proportion of the gold stock sank in mid Atlantic so the gold was irretrievably lost. Wouldn't that be the same as it being destroyed? What if the gold in Fort Knox was subjected to such a high level of radiation that it could not be accessed (shades of Goldfinger)?
lol What if. How often does this kind of thing happen? Gold did get plunged to the bottom of the oceans a lot at one point, yes. But it can be retrieved. Dollars can burn, get ripped up, anything, and it's worthless. Period. Gold on the other hand, if retrieved from the ocean, retains its value. As for radiation, well, I'm not that kind of scientist lol
riced wrote:
I thought capital is a stock of assets used in production; money is a commodity used as a means of exchange. Money is also used as a measure of value, so the capital stock has a money value. The amount of capital (i.e. the size of the stock) depends on the rates of investment and depreciation. If the commodity used as money is perishable then it can be destoyed
I'd say all of this is true, except with a slight problem with the last sentence. If the commodity is perishable, it is only capital stock, and not money, because of the fact that it can be destroyed. This is not the usual definition of money, true. But it's a good way to think of it. If you can destroy your money, was it money to begin with? Why value it in terms of itself, if you burn it? Money has to have a definitive value. Capital is just a means of exchange with some kind of value. So if you have tuna for example, and you eat it, why would you define it in terms of itself? The capital itself is now gone. So it is definitely not money, if the capital stock is now decremented by one.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.josda1000 wrote:
This is not the usual definition of money, t
See WikiPedia (or any decent economics dictionary): Money is anything that is generally accepted as payment for goods and services and repayment of debts.[1][2] The main functions of money are distinguished as: a medium of exchange; a unit of account; a store of value; and, occasionally, a standard of deferred payment. In economics, capital, capital goods, or real capital are factors of production used to create goods or services that are not themselves significantly consumed (though they may depreciate) in the production process. Capital goods may be acquired with money or financial capital. Unless of course you mean financial capital.
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
-
josda1000 wrote:
This is not the usual definition of money, t
See WikiPedia (or any decent economics dictionary): Money is anything that is generally accepted as payment for goods and services and repayment of debts.[1][2] The main functions of money are distinguished as: a medium of exchange; a unit of account; a store of value; and, occasionally, a standard of deferred payment. In economics, capital, capital goods, or real capital are factors of production used to create goods or services that are not themselves significantly consumed (though they may depreciate) in the production process. Capital goods may be acquired with money or financial capital. Unless of course you mean financial capital.
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
-
How does this disprove what I said? Especially the last sentence. "Capital goods may be acquired with money or financial capital."
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.Merely pointing out that my definition of money is the usual one. Capital is not usually considered a means of exchange - that's money.
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
And you can stop touting Common Sense. Common Sense tells me that the Sun rises and sets.
No, this is your sense. Common sense is now that the world revolves around the sun. lol I know what you're trying to say though. But I disagree.
Bob Emmett wrote:
The British, French, German, and Russian, Empires set aside their nationalism and sought a diplomatic solution?
One could argue that this is correct; yes.
Bob Emmett wrote:
All systems of economics are Utopian.
Understood, however, one must understand that when moving money from the productive sector to the nonproductive sector, the productive sector will tend to feel enslaved. This is why the only logical, and honestly humanitarian, system is capitalism.
Bob Emmett wrote:
Political Expediency trumps 'Common Sense' every time.
Totally agreed.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.josda1000 wrote:
Common sense is now that the world revolves around the sun.
That it is the earth's rotation that gives us day and night is what has had to be explained to each and everyone, because our uneducated intuition (i.e., Common Sense) is that the sun rises and sets.
josda1000 wrote:
One could argue that this is correct; yes.
One could argue that World War I never took place because the Austrian, British, French, German, and Russian, Empires, were on the Gold Standard and, consequently, set aside their nationalism and sought a diplomatic solution? I am sure you did not mean that.
Bob Emmett New Eugenicist - The weekly magazine for intelligent parenting. Published by the New World Order Press.