LWDT 8: Hitting the Marx

[Proctopeo]

To be fair, libertarianism was ok in the Ron Paul era. Nowadays it just feels fallen out of time.

Ron Paul-style libertarianism sucks, not least because of the old geezer himself and the stupid bullshit he has advocated for: returning to the gold standard, abolishing the central banking system, climate-change denial, etc. The near-religious fervor with which right-libertarians view private property and the market is sickening. In the US, also, there's the additional tendency among these folks to essentially worship the United States' Constitution as God-given; it's always struck me as totally ridiculous.

I fail to see the issue. Especially taken with the amendments (or at least the Bill of Rights, ie the first ten), it's an incredible governing document. "God-given" is a stretch, but I see few to no people who actually act like it is.

[Northern Davincia]

Ron Paul is pretty much right about everything, give or take a few things. The gold standard is infinitely preferable to fiat.

A poll of forty prominent US economists conducted by the IGM Economic Experts Panel in 2012 found that none of them believed that returning to the gold standard would be economically beneficial. The specific statement with which the economists were asked to agree or disagree was: "If the US replaced its discretionary monetary policy regime with a gold standard, defining a 'dollar' as a specific number of ounces of gold, the price-stability and employment outcomes would be better for the average American." 40% of the economists disagreed, and 53% strongly disagreed with the statement; the rest did not respond to the question. The panel of polled economists included past Nobel Prize winners, former economic advisers to both Republican and Democratic presidents, and senior faculty from Harvard, Chicago, Stanford, MIT, and other well-known research universities.

Yep, clearly.

Clearly forty individuals is enough for any survey. Besides, I hadn't figured you to be one to listen to economists, especially regarding their opinion on the minimum wage.

[Nakena]

Ron Paul-style libertarianism sucks, not least because of the old geezer himself and the stupid bullshit he has advocated for: returning to the gold standard, abolishing the central banking system, climate-change denial, etc.

Ron Paul was right about many things in a hindsight, that doesnt means that he hadn a number of ideas that probably wouldn have stood the rest of the realities of the USA in the early 21th Century had he become President.

The near-religious fervor with which right-libertarians view private property and the market is sickening.

It's every bit as flawed as dialectic materialism IMO.

In the US, also, there's the additional tendency among these folks to essentially worship the United States' Constitution as God-given; it's always struck me as totally ridiculous.

Thats because they have not yet taken the WRA pill.

[Pasong Tirad]

Ron Paul is pretty much right about everything, give or take a few things. The gold standard is infinitely preferable to fiat.

A poll of forty prominent US economists conducted by the IGM Economic Experts Panel in 2012 found that none of them believed that returning to the gold standard would be economically beneficial. The specific statement with which the economists were asked to agree or disagree was: "If the US replaced its discretionary monetary policy regime with a gold standard, defining a 'dollar' as a specific number of ounces of gold, the price-stability and employment outcomes would be better for the average American." 40% of the economists disagreed, and 53% strongly disagreed with the statement; the rest did not respond to the question. The panel of polled economists included past Nobel Prize winners, former economic advisers to both Republican and Democratic presidents, and senior faculty from Harvard, Chicago, Stanford, MIT, and other well-known research universities.

Yep, clearly.

Oh don't bother. He's not here for good faith discourse he's here to own the commies.

[Northern Davincia]

Yep, clearly.

Oh don't bother. He's not here for good faith discourse he's here to own the commies.

Does this mean that you agree with economists?

[Pasong Tirad]

Oh don't bother. He's not here for good faith discourse he's here to own the commies.

Does this mean that you agree with economists?

dOeS tHiS mEaN tHaT yOu AgReE wItH eCoNoMiStS

[Northern Davincia]

Does this mean that you agree with economists?

dOeS tHiS mEaN tHaT yOu AgReE wItH eCoNoMiStS

I hope you realize the absurdity of citing the very people who you fundamentally disagree with on a majority of topics.

[Totenborg]

Ron Paul-style libertarianism sucks, not least because of the old geezer himself and the stupid bullshit he has advocated for: returning to the gold standard, abolishing the central banking system, climate-change denial, etc. The near-religious fervor with which right-libertarians view private property and the market is sickening. In the US, also, there's the additional tendency among these folks to essentially worship the United States' Constitution as God-given; it's always struck me as totally ridiculous.

I fail to see the issue. Especially taken with the amendments (or at least the Bill of Rights, ie the first ten), it's an incredible governing document. "God-given" is a stretch, but I see few to no people who actually act like it is.

Too bad their fervor for the Constitution is often very selective.

[Proctopeo]

I fail to see the issue. Especially taken with the amendments (or at least the Bill of Rights, ie the first ten), it's an incredible governing document. "God-given" is a stretch, but I see few to no people who actually act like it is.

Too bad their fervor for the Constitution is often very selective.

I press x to doubt.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Too bad their fervor for the Constitution is often very selective.

I press x to doubt.

I mean, there was near-universal support in Congress for the patriot act, which is blatantly unconstitutional, and no one seems to complain about Lincoln basically being a dictator during his state of emergency.

[Northern Davincia]

I press x to doubt.

I mean, there was near-universal support in Congress for the patriot act, which is blatantly unconstitutional, and no one seems to complain about Lincoln basically being a dictator during his state of emergency.

Libertarians are often critical of both.

[Proctopeo]

I press x to doubt.

I mean, there was near-universal support in Congress for the patriot act, which is blatantly unconstitutional, and no one seems to complain about Lincoln basically being a dictator during his state of emergency.

Neither of those have anything to do with libertarians.

I mean, there was near-universal support in Congress for the patriot act, which is blatantly unconstitutional, and no one seems to complain about Lincoln basically being a dictator during his state of emergency.

Libertarians are often critical of both.

Almost always of the Patriot act, often of Lincoln's power. The latter only "often" because people don't tend to know about it, and he had good PR and a worse enemy.

[Pasong Tirad]

dOeS tHiS mEaN tHaT yOu AgReE wItH eCoNoMiStS

I hope you realize the absurdity of citing the very people who you fundamentally disagree with on a majority of topics.

You're making absolutely zero sense to me right now.

[Kubra]

I hope you realize the absurdity of citing the very people who you fundamentally disagree with on a majority of topics.

You're making absolutely zero sense to me right now.

Nah he's actually pretty right here, if ones just appealing to authority then it does get a bit funky when you gotta go up against everything else you'll find mainstream economists saying. Besides, it's not as if we do not have our own frameworks by which to say "a gold standard isn't all that great."

It's better to begin by the reasons for such a disagreement. Northern Davincia, why don't you start?

[Northern Davincia]

You're making absolutely zero sense to me right now.

Nah he's actually pretty right here, if ones just appealing to authority then it does get a bit funky when you gotta go up against everything else you'll find mainstream economists saying. Besides, it's not as if we do not have our own frameworks by which to say "a gold standard isn't all that great."

It's better to begin by the reasons for such a disagreement. Northern Davincia, why don't you start?

Fair enough. The gold standard, or really almost anything besides fiat currency, is a good method for keeping inflation under control and retaining consumer purchasing power.

[Kubra]

Nah he's actually pretty right here, if ones just appealing to authority then it does get a bit funky when you gotta go up against everything else you'll find mainstream economists saying. Besides, it's not as if we do not have our own frameworks by which to say "a gold standard isn't all that great."

It's better to begin by the reasons for such a disagreement. Northern Davincia, why don't you start?

Fair enough. The gold standard, or really almost anything besides fiat currency, is a good method for keeping inflation under control and retaining consumer purchasing power.

And there we go, we've got the makings of fruitful discussion. Still, a little more detail is to be desired. Inflation well I won't even touch, I mean that's pretty much true, let's go over consumer purchasing power; could you elaborate on the point?

[Northern Davincia]

Fair enough. The gold standard, or really almost anything besides fiat currency, is a good method for keeping inflation under control and retaining consumer purchasing power.

And there we go, we've got the makings of fruitful discussion. Still, a little more detail is to be desired. Inflation well I won't even touch, I mean that's pretty much true, let's go over consumer purchasing power; could you elaborate on the point?

The gold standard is deflationary by nature, and with the sudden drop in prices, consumers have a significant increase in spending power. Their dollars will go a lot further than before.
Deflation is only bad if we accept the Keynesian argument that lesser circulation harms the market, whereas I believe the market resets in order to account for the shift. People saving money is better than spending it recklessly as they do now.

[Kubra]

And there we go, we've got the makings of fruitful discussion. Still, a little more detail is to be desired. Inflation well I won't even touch, I mean that's pretty much true, let's go over consumer purchasing power; could you elaborate on the point?

The gold standard is deflationary by nature, and with the sudden drop in prices, consumers have a significant increase in spending power. Their dollars will go a lot further than before.
Deflation is only bad if we accept the Keynesian argument that lesser circulation harms the market, whereas I believe the market resets in order to account for the shift. People saving money is better than spending it recklessly as they do now.

The criticism that's usually given here goes something like if the rate at which a currency deflates results in greater value than if that currency was instead invested into various activities than it would result in a contraction of such. You know, if it's better to save money than to throw it at startups looking to put something out folks will save money instead. Apart from uh, startups mostly being a bad way to throw your money around, how would you respond to such?

[Northern Davincia]

The gold standard is deflationary by nature, and with the sudden drop in prices, consumers have a significant increase in spending power. Their dollars will go a lot further than before.
Deflation is only bad if we accept the Keynesian argument that lesser circulation harms the market, whereas I believe the market resets in order to account for the shift. People saving money is better than spending it recklessly as they do now.

The criticism that's usually given here goes something like if the rate at which a currency deflates results in greater value than if that currency was instead invested into various activities than it would result in a contraction of such. You know, if it's better to save money than to throw it at startups looking to put something out folks will save money instead. Apart from uh, startups mostly being a bad way to throw your money around, how would you respond to such?

The money is still invested, just at a moderate and manageable pace. Households will find greater stability in saving money when individual debts are so frequent and burdensome.

[Kubra]

The criticism that's usually given here goes something like if the rate at which a currency deflates results in greater value than if that currency was instead invested into various activities than it would result in a contraction of such. You know, if it's better to save money than to throw it at startups looking to put something out folks will save money instead. Apart from uh, startups mostly being a bad way to throw your money around, how would you respond to such?

The money is still invested, just at a moderate and manageable pace. Households will find greater stability in saving money when individual debts are so frequent and burdensome.

I'm not suggesting an end to investment entirely, merely, as you say, a reduction in the rate. We're in agreement on this occurrence, yes?

Could you clarify the second point? I read it as savings being generally preferable to the current trend of rising household debt, is this correct?

[Byzconia]

Yep, clearly.

Clearly forty individuals is enough for any survey. Besides, I hadn't figured you to be one to listen to economists, especially regarding their opinion on the minimum wage.

Forty economists, whose opinions are all far more valuable than a sub-par politician like Ron Paul. And what about the minimum wage?

[Byzconia]

Ron Paul-style libertarianism sucks, not least because of the old geezer himself and the stupid bullshit he has advocated for: returning to the gold standard, abolishing the central banking system, climate-change denial, etc.

Ron Paul was right about many things in a hindsight, that doesnt means that he hadn a number of ideas that probably wouldn have stood the rest of the realities of the USA in the early 21th Century had he become President.

The near-religious fervor with which right-libertarians view private property and the market is sickening.

It's every bit as flawed as dialectic materialism IMO.

In the US, also, there's the additional tendency among these folks to essentially worship the United States' Constitution as God-given; it's always struck me as totally ridiculous.

Thats because they have not yet taken the WRA pill.

Dialectical materialism is actually a fine way to look at history. A class-based look at history can fill in a lot of gaps and re-contextualize popular events (as Howard Zinn has proven, even if he does go off the rails every now and then). The only real issue is how Marxists try to use it to predict the future and insist that it's some kind of law of history that must be obeyed. Still, it has far more value in history than Libertarian praxis does in economics.

[Northern Davincia]

The money is still invested, just at a moderate and manageable pace. Households will find greater stability in saving money when individual debts are so frequent and burdensome.

I'm not suggesting an end to investment entirely, merely, as you say, a reduction in the rate. We're in agreement on this occurrence, yes?

Could you clarify the second point? I read it as savings being generally preferable to the current trend of rising household debt, is this correct?

We would be in agreement on the first point, yes. As for the second, savings give households more leverage in paying off their debts, so you are correct.

Clearly forty individuals is enough for any survey. Besides, I hadn't figured you to be one to listen to economists, especially regarding their opinion on the minimum wage.

Forty economists, whose opinions are all far more valuable than a sub-par politician like Ron Paul. And what about the minimum wage?

Economists, and more than just forty, overwhelmingly oppose the minimum wage and increases thereof. Still, even forty experts is a small sample size to claim unanimity for the rest.

[Byzconia]

Economists, and more than just forty, overwhelmingly oppose the minimum wage and increases thereof. Still, even forty experts is a small sample size to claim unanimity for the rest.

Source?

And I never claimed unanimity, just citing actual evidence. You've cited no data in the gold standard's favor (of course, Libertarians almost always reject economics they disagree with as "not real science"--Hayek would be proud).

[Nakena]

Ron Paul was right about many things in a hindsight, that doesnt means that he hadn a number of ideas that probably wouldn have stood the rest of the realities of the USA in the early 21th Century had he become President.



It's every bit as flawed as dialectic materialism IMO.



Thats because they have not yet taken the WRA pill.

Dialectical materialism is actually a fine way to look at history. A class-based look at history can fill in a lot of gaps and re-contextualize popular events (as Howard Zinn has proven, even if he does go off the rails every now and then). The only real issue is how Marxists try to use it to predict the future and insist that it's some kind of law of history that must be obeyed. Still, it has far more value in history than Libertarian praxis does in economics.

Thats my main problem indeed with Diamat and why I am opposed to it because it then becomes a totalitarian and only true worldview than merely one possible model amongst many.