 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Anyone,
I am going to communicate an optional viewpoint that does not follow the left/right or socialist/capitalist script as it has become known, currently, as a polarizing, perpetuating, internalized, conflict.
Gary North writes:
That's what Dr. Marx taught, too. He called this process the exploitation of labor. He argued that employers – capitalists – extract value from laborers because employers pay them less than they are worth. Capitalists pay laborers only survival wages, and then pocket the difference.
To help understand the option viewpoint I will paint a picture for the reader, and once the reader has this picture in view the reader can look from that place to the ongoing left/right conflict.
Picture a society whereby the supply of money to the honest productive people within the society is abundant, not scarce, abundant.
You may have trouble with that picture. You may have a very hard time conceptualizing such a society. I can help.
In such a society as a society whereby the honest productive people have ready access to money, an abundant supply of money, there is a scale by which that abundance, and that ready access flows from the source of the money to the users of the money, and on that scale there are extreme limits on each end, and any honest productive person exists on that scale, and being on that scale from one end, or the other end, is a fact of being honest, and it is a fact of being productive, and it is therefore a fact of being able to employ money on that scale.
Those who are very, very, very, and most, extremely, dishonest, are on one end of the scale.
Those who are very, very, very, and most, extremely, unproductive, are on one end of the scale.
Those who are very, very, very, and most, extremely, honest, are on the other end of the scale.
Those who are very, very, very, and most, extremely, productive, are on the other end of the scale.
Most Destructive and Dishonest<->destructive and dishonest<-> neither destructive or productive and neither honest or dishonest<->productive and honest<->Most Productive and Honest
That is the scale and that scale is the scale by which the flow of money flows from the producers of money to the users of money readily while at the same time the flow of money does not readily flow from the producers of money to the torturing mass murderers and those who lie, those who steal, and those who rob, rape, torture, and murder, and those who destroy as an occupation.
Most Destructive and Dishonest<->destructive and dishonest<-> neither destructive or productive and neither honest or dishonest<->productive and honest<->Most Productive and Honest
Least access to money, money is most scarce on this end of the same scale above->->->->->->->->->->->->Most access to money, money is abundant on this end of the same scale above
You now have before you an easy to see social network whereby the power to produce (money is purchasing power or it isn't money) flows to those who can produce the most power to produce while, at the same time, the power to destroy does not flow to those who are most capable of abusing the power to produce in the work of destroying everything including the power to produce.
I've painted the picture, you can ignore it, you can fail to see it, you can fail to ask vital questions concerning what it is, and how to make it work best, but it is, and it will always be what it is, even if you refuse to see it.
If you see it, get in it, know it, be it, and accept it, as it exists, and from that point, look back, look back from that point to the social network at work today whereby socialism is set-up against capitalism in it's present form.
From here:
Most Destructive and Dishonest<->destructive and dishonest<-> neither destructive or productive and neither honest or dishonest<->productive and honest<->Most Productive and Honest
Least access to money, money is most scarce on this end of the same scale above->->->->->->->->->->->->Most access to money, money is abundant on this end of the same scale above
From there look back to here:
Honest Productive People>->->->->->->>->->->->->->->>->->->->->->>->->->->->->>->->->->->->>->->->->->->>->->->->->->>->->->->->->>->->->->->->>->->->->->->>->->->->->->Legal Criminals
Those who employ money to make more productive power send the total of their productive work to those who then use that power stolen in the work of destruction to keep the power to do so perpetually
There are two ways to prove to you that the social network working now is the second social network above, and those two methods of proving to you are as follows:
A.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
B.
http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/sense2.htm
Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.
Whenever someone claims that socialism is opposite capitalism, think twice, or think as many times as needed to get out of that hell hole. It is a rigged game. Socialism is not even remotely connected to capitalism, unless you define socialism as an opposite of capitalism, and then, as far as you are concerned, that is what socialism is, as socialism, to you, is the opposite of capitalism, to you, and everyone else who is caught up in that rat trap, clap trap, lie, falsehood, self-destructive merry go round, business cycle insanity, bull expletive.
Socialism has a long history, and it was, is, and will be a scientific approach toward the study of society, in the effort to improve society. Like a gun, or a pointed stick, socialism can be employed by honest productive people as well as socialism can be employed by dishonest destructive people any time, any place, right now, or in the next span of time until human beings are no longer living.
Capitalism has a long history, and it was, is, and will be a method of pricing and that is about it, as far as I know. Capitalism can be anything any honest productive person wants it to be, and capitalism can be anything any dishonest destructive person wants it to be, any time, any where, from now on.
The socialism versus capitalism dogmatic, and false, method of enslaving targeted victims by those who invent, produce, and maintain that false method of enslaving targeted victims is exactly that, and it was that, and it will be that, for as long as it works that way, as long as the targeted victims allow it to work that way.
Left versus Right
Socialism versus Capitalism
Communism versus Fascism
Democrats versus Republicans
Organized crime group A versus Organized crime group B
Legal Crime group A versus Legal Crime group B
The labels hide the names of the actual people who invent, produce, and maintain those types of connections, those types of social networks, those types of arrangements that are, without the lies, and are without the false fronts, INVOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS.
When there are battles going on whereby those who invent, produce, and maintain VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS, are being targeted by those who invent, produce, and maintain INVOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS you have, before you, regime change of a different nature, an different order, and a regime change that cannot be known by the victims; hence the need to invent, produce, and maintain the false battle.
If the victims are fighting a false battle, whereby the victims are fighting each other, they have no power being employed in the work that can cause the end of victimization.
Do you have that understood?
How many ways can that be shown to you, whereby you can still manage to ignore it?
Will you ever question the lies that you have accepted as fact?
Back to Gary North:
That's what Dr. Marx taught, too. He called this process the exploitation of labor. He argued that employers – capitalists – extract value from laborers because employers pay them less than they are worth. Capitalists pay laborers only survival wages, and then pocket the difference.
All of that is nonsense. It is abject acceptance of falsehood driving false solutions. You can know this, easily. You don't have to rely upon the expertise of an Austrian Economist to dig your own way out of the mire.
When purchasing power flows to honest productive people in abundance, instead of the opposite, whereby purchasing power flows readily, quickly, rapidly, into the hand of the most destructive among us, what happens?
What happens if the following is reversed?
A.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
B.
http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/sense2.htm
Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.
It won't be capitalism.
It won't be socialism.
It will be a social network that measurably allows, voluntarily, the flow of power flowing to the people who are most able to use that power in the work of making more power.
What happens when power is abundant?
It won't be capitalism
It won't be socialism
Capitalism is just, and only, a method of pricing, and it is a method of pricing that is employed by the person using it to move power to them from someone else, and that is it, and it can be capitalism whenever it works for whomever it works and so what, big deal, it is not something to die for, it is not something to torture people to keep, it isn't worth anything more than any other pricing method at any time, in any place.
Capitalism is a pricing method. If it is more to you, it is something else, and you define what it is, to you, and to whomever you share that exclusive definition, whereby your group define capitalism that way, so what, big deal, pat yourselves on the back.
Is capitalism the thing you use to excuse legal torture and legal mass murder? Is your pricing method worth that much to you? What is capitalism to you?
This:
Honest Productive People>->->->->->->>->->->->->->->>->->->->->->>->->->->->->>->->->->->->>->->->->->->>->->->->->->>->->->->->->>->->->->->->>->->->->->->>->->->->->->Legal Criminals
Those who employ money to make more productive power send the total of their productive work to those who then use that power stolen in the work of destruction to keep the power to do so perpetually
If that is the bare bones, no false advertizing, no false fronts, no hidden agendas, no secret deals, no dirty compromises, out in the open, true, accurate, real, factual thing you know to be as capitalism, then capitalism isn't just a pricing method, to you.
If that is capitalism, to you, and your group, then capitalism isn't this:
Most Destructive and Dishonest<->destructive and dishonest<-> neither destructive or productive and neither honest or dishonest<->productive and honest<->Most Productive and Honest
Least access to money, money is most scarce on this end of the same scale above->->->->->->->->->->->->Most access to money, money is abundant on this end of the same scale above
When the power to purchase moves more readily to those who employ power in the necessary work required to produce more power the end result will be an abundance of power sooner than any other flow of power.
When the power to purchase moves more readily to those who employ power in the necessary work required to move power to dishonest people who destroy things, you have this:
A.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
B.
http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/sense2.htm
Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.
Call that socialism if it makes you feel better about it. It is still it. Call that capitalism, if it makes you feel better about it. It is still it. It is still doing what it does best.
Back to Gary North:
That's what Dr. Marx taught, too. He called this process the exploitation of labor. He argued that employers – capitalists – extract value from laborers because employers pay them less than they are worth. Capitalists pay laborers only survival wages, and then pocket the difference.
The Gold Bugs, and the Austrian Economists, call them conservatives, or call them republicans, or call them friends of Liberty, or constitutionalists, or whatever label works for you, but don't call them late for dinner.
They want purchasing power to be scarce. That is their tune. So long as purchasing power is scarce, so long will those who know how to get scarce things be more powerful than those who don't. That is their tune.
It is based upon the idea that value, the full and only measure of value, is measured on a scale of scarcity. Like this:
Most scarce, very scarce, pretty scarce, kinda scarce, not scarce or abundant, kinda abundant, pretty abundant, very abundant, most abundant
Most valuable, very valuable, kinda valuable, not as valuable, even less valuable, nearly absent any value, hardly worth anything, worth nothing
That is a very flawed economic theory, as it ignores, on purpose, the value of generosity, and it ignores, by willful ignorance, or just plain stupidity, the value of power.
If power is abundant it is more powerful.
If power is scarce it is only more powerful for those who have the power to get more power than anyone else.
So, that is the measure of error in that viewpoint, as anyone with a brain can see, assuming, of course, that the man hears more than just what he what's to hear.
I've spilled the beans. I've blown the whistle. What can the capitalists do, once they know the truth about their pricing methods? They are trained to accept only one option, which is to move closer to socialism.
That is the insanity of the left/right falsehood. That is the brilliancy, or genius, of the left/right falsehood.
Are you an insane victim.
Are you a member of the legal crime syndicate?
How do you earn your living?
Who pays the bills?
If your brilliant, genius, left/right falsehood fills your bank account, you may find out soon, that you are just another one of the insane victims, and you have fair warning, from more than just another conscientious objector, your even have warnings offered to you from above, and I don't mean Gold.
Back to Gary North:
That's what Dr. Marx taught, too. He called this process the exploitation of labor. He argued that employers – capitalists – extract value from laborers because employers pay them less than they are worth. Capitalists pay laborers only survival wages, and then pocket the difference.
I return to that because that says so much.
What happens when power flows readily, abundantly, to those who employ power best at the work of making more power?
That is a vital question, and therefore an accurate answer is required, a must have, and failing to have the accurate answer can be worse than failing to ask the question, since the wrong answer can invent, and produce, a wrong path, a path heading further away from the right path, while the person who has not yet asked the question may yet ask it, and may yet gain the accurate answer.
What happens when power flows readily, abundantly, to those who employ power best at the work of making more power?
Jobs, employment, opportunity, and an abundant supply of new, productive, things to be done can be what happens when power flows readily, abundantly, to those who employ power best at the work of making more power.
What happens when there are many, many, many more job opportunities than there are people who are ready, willing, and able to fill those job opportunities?
The shoe is on the other foot.
A worker becomes the employer.
Like this:
Joe is a person needing help to complete a large work load, failing to gain the help need will be total failure as another competitor does not fail in this work of finding, hiring, and paying workers to work.
Jack is a person deciding which job to take, among an abundant supply of jobs, not wanting to be too generous, not wanting to give up too much for too little.
Joe interviews Jack:
Joe:
"Jack, sit down, please, I'm offering you less than the minimum wage required by law, because I can."
Jack:
"Stuff it."
Back to Gary North:
That's what Dr. Marx taught, too. He called this process the exploitation of labor. He argued that employers – capitalists – extract value from laborers because employers pay them less than they are worth. Capitalists pay laborers only survival wages, and then pocket the difference.
If the Gold Bugs get to keep a monetary system that manages to make purchasing power scarce to everyone except those who are best able to deceive targeted victims, or threaten targeted victims, or injuring targeted victims, or torturing targeted victims, or mass murdering targeted victims, then power will remain scarce, on purpose, because power can't be allowed to reach a level that is even remotely close to abundance, because abundant power will find it's way into the hands of honest productive people, and that will result in honest productive people doing what they do best, which is production, which will be powerful, which will move the production of power more toward abundance, including the production of an abundant supply of job opportunities.
Joe interviews Jack:
Joe:
"Jack, sit down, please, I'm offering you less than the minimum wage required by law, because I can."
Jack:
"Stuff it."
Back to Gary North:
[Note: the phrase "pocket the difference" is the very heart of the endless debates among all schools of economic opinion. Why? Because nobody keeps the money in his pocket for long. He does something with it. So, to understand economics, follow the money: into pockets and out of pockets.]
Please don't get the wrong idea. I'm not blowing the whistle on Gary North. I think that Gary North knows the facts as good as anyone I've read living today. Gold may dominate a free market as the highest quality legal currency taking most of the market share because it is higher in quality and lower in cost than all competitors combined.
I don't know. I think not. I think that electricity is a much better legal currency. The trouble with electricity as money, not currency, is that electricity is a use it or lose it form of legal currency. Storing electricity is yet another market. Electricity is a very productive form of legal currency. Electricity is a very high quality legal currency, because it is exactly what it is, and it is therefore a very exact standard of purchasing power.
That is what I think, not what Gary North thinks. I may be alone in my thoughts. You can be the judge.
You are.
Back to Gary North:
Therefore, Marx concluded, the way to get rich is to set up a business in India and China, where there are enormous pools of labor to be exploited. Oops, sorry; that's not what Marx taught. He said that the way to get rich was to imitate his partner, Frederick Engels, who ran a factory in Manchester. Well, he did not actually admit that his partner was a capitalist exploiter, but he knew how the man made enough money to put him on the dole for 30 years. So, Marx argued, the way to get rich is to set up a business in a growing economy – a capitalist economy – where there are fewer laborers than in Asia, and who live far better than Asians did in 1850. Exploit richer workers – that's the ticket to wealth!
I want to explore the optional viewpoint much more than I have the time at this time, so I have to cut this short. The above quote reminds me of a lesson learned. The lesson I learned had to do with the two default viewpoints combined into the one conflict viewpoint, and how, historically, that played out.
In the Communist Manifesto there are quotes that may be attributed to Marx or Engels. Confusing the two may be a bad idea. In those quotes the message is clearly marking the differences between the false conflict and the option.
The false conflict was said to be, specifically, COMMUNISM versus Capitalism, and in The Communist Manifesto the option viewpoint was spelled out as Socialism, and even that was specified as the Socialism spoken of by specific proponents of Socialism.
Here:
http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html
PREFACE TO 1888 ENGLISH EDITION
Down here:
Yet, when it was written, we could not have called it a _socialist_ manifesto. By Socialists, in 1847, were understood, on the one hand the adherents of the various Utopian systems: Owenites in England, Fourierists in France, both of them already reduced to the position of mere sects, and gradually dying out; on the other hand, the most multifarious social quacks who, by all manner of tinkering, professed to redress, without any danger to capital and profit, all sorts of social grievances, in both cases men outside the working-class movement, and looking rather to the "educated" classes for support. Whatever portion of the working class had become convinced of the insufficiency of mere political revolutions, and had proclaimed the necessity of total social change, called itself Communist. It was a crude, rough-hewn, purely instinctive sort of communism; still, it touched the cardinal point and was powerful enough amongst the working class to produce the Utopian communism of Cabet in France, and of Weitling in Germany. Thus, in 1847, socialism was a middle-class movement, communism a working-class movement. Socialism was, on the Continent at least, "respectable"; communism was the very opposite. And as our notion, from the very beginning, was that "the emancipation of the workers must be the act of the working class itself," there could be no doubt as to which of the two names we must take. Moreover, we have, ever since, been far from repudiating it.
Note the use of the following term:
social quacks
The Enemies of Communism, therefore, are known.
Owenites
Fourierists
Those were the enemies of the Communism versus Capitalism battle.
Those were the optional viewpoints. Those where the ones opting out of the false paradigm.
I have learned a lesson about those options.
From those options, in America, the following option was invented:
http://tmh.floonet.net/pdf/jwarren.pdf
That was explained further, in historical context, by the following:
Owen, Fourier, St. Simon, and more, have worthily sought to solve the problem of a harmonious human society; and although they have all tailed to discover the true methods of reform, they have done, in the effort to do so, other and most valuable work. They have laid bare the vices of the old règime with a terrific fidelity. They have, like Carlyle, disgusted mankind with their own portraiture. At the same time they have sketched with a potent hand an enchanting picture of the “golden age of the future,” which contrasts in all men’s minds forcibly, at this day, with the antagonism, the wasteful expenditure of means, the ignorance, and crime, and sickness, and squalor, and filth, and wretchedness, and the broad and painful but ludicrous diversities of poverty and wealth, and the mercenary degradation of all classes, which disgrace the existing state of our social organization. Fourier has done even far more than this. His masterly analysis of the human passions is an invaluable contribution to man’s knowledge of himself. His daring but shadowy outline of a science of universal analogy, which would be entitled, if once put fairly upon the firm basis of a known science, to the denomination of “The Science of Sciences,” is eminently worthy of estimation, if regarded as merely suggestive, and stimulating to more sedate and systematic investigations in the same direction, and equally dangerous if accepted for what it claims to be an ascertained basis from which to reason in practical science.
http://www.anarchism.net/scienceofsociety.htm
The lesson is such that other people know the same lesson, in other words:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/tv-radio/pilgers-law-if-its-been-officially-denied-then-itrsquos-probably-true-959206.html
Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it’s probably true'
The Communist Manifesto officially denies Socialism and not ambiguously, there is a specific reference to a pre-corruption Socialism.
Owenites in England, Fourierists in France
That was imported, improved, and that became such things as Equitable Commerce.
There are other examples:
http://www.the-portal.org/mutual_banking.htm
Mutual Banking (look up The Parasite City please)
And here:
http://lysanderspooner.org/node/40
A New System of Paper Currency
Listen up.
Those are American versions of options that are outside of the Left/Right conflict, so, what does the "Right" have to say about those American born options, and keep in mind Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it’s probably true'
You have to go to the Right sides official mouthpiece, and you probably don't even know who that is, so I can offer to you a very competitive competitor for the official, no bones, free market, mouth piece, the literal horses mouth, for the established right.
Here:
http://mises.org/books/egalitarianism.pdf
Murray Rothbard
Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature
13
THE SPOONER–TUCKER
DOCTRINE: AN
ECONOMIST’S VIEW
Remember a few things here please, before I begin quoting:
1. The mouth piece of the free market right do not touch Equitable Commerce with a 10 foot pole, as far as the Free Market Right (tm) is concerned the author of Equitable Commerce is persona non grata.
2. The closest I have ever found of any spokesperson of the Free Market Right (tm) challenging Equitable Commerce by Josiah Warren is the quotes I am going to now quote.
3. Spooner was a spokes person contemporary to, or at the same time as, Josiah Warren and Stephen Pearl Andrews, all of which came after Owen and Fourier, all of which are contemporaries with Marx and Engels, more or less, and then following Josiah Warren the work of Benjamin Tucker, with his publications of Liberty, for example, the time line is thereby reported.
So Murray Rothbard has to skip over Josiah Warren, as if Equitable Commerce didn't exist, so as to then discredit Spooner and Tucker.
Here are the quotes:
Actually, in contrast to collectivist anarchists and to many other types of radicals, Spooner and Tucker tried to use economics rather than scorn it as excessively rational. Some of their fallacies (for example, the “law of cost,” the labor theory of value) were embedded in much of classical economics; and it was their adoption of the labor theory of value that convinced them that rent, interest, and profit were payments exploitatively extracted from the worker. In contrast to the Marxists, however, Spooner and Tucker, understanding many of the virtues of the free market, did not wish to abolish that noble institution; instead, they believed that full freedom would lead, by the workings of economic law, to the peaceful disappearance of these three categories of income. The mechanism for this peaceful abolition Spooner and Tucker found—and here they unfortunately ignored the teachings of classical economics and substituted instead their own fallacies—in the sphere of money.
That is bait and switch, combined with a Man of Straw product. There is no argument possible as to the cost principle which is Josiah Warren's observation reported in Equitable Commerce. Rothbard baits with an inaccurate reference to the cost principle by twisting it and replacing it with his own construction of "law of cost" and then his own Man of Straw in "The Labor Theory of Value (tm)".
So, politically, destructive politics, or resort to deceit is a play here in measurable ways.
A.
Do not mention that which must not be acknowledged, which is the same thing happening right now as the Legal Criminals do not mention Ron Paul. Murray Rothbard, and all the right side dogmatists do not mention Josiah Warren and Equitable Commerce, at all.
B.
Corrupt the message that does manage to become currently aware by a significant number of people, despite refusal to even mention that which must not be acknowledged. In other words if the message does get out, despite all effort to keep the message censored, the next best thing is to alter, corrupt, and spin the message.
C.
Attack the corrupted message, and misdirect all attention away from the actual message. A Man of Straw is constructed with an obvious flaw, and then the constructor of the Man of Straw has power over that weak opponent, while the actual opponent is thereby hidden.
More from Murray Rothbard:
The two basic interrelated fallacies of Spoonerite theory (and the theory of all schools of writers who have unkindly been labelled by economists as “money-cranks”) are a failure to understand the nature of money and the nature of interest.
First off, you can read Spooner's actual work, if you care to, and you can know that it is sound, and his work is far closer to capitalism, it is capitalism in fact, it employes the same pricing method, based upon scarcity, and therefore the whole attack on Spooner is ludicrous, laughable, or even stupid - certainly ignorant. Secondly the actual alternative, the cost principle, and individuality principle based Equitable Commerce competitor, the actual target of Rothbard's false political spin, the same thing that inspired Tucker, is again misrepresented by Rothbard, entirely side stepped, with the reference to "monetary-cranks".
Thirdly, notice the tactic of claiming to blame the use of derogatory, and inflammatory herbage on other people. Rothbard claims that it is unfair to call his Straw-Man "monetary-cranks", while he does it.
Forthright, the concept of interest is not "understood" in any sense of the word, and all the ambiguity of "interest" according to Rothbard is the full measure of it. The interest is ambiguity, and the idea is to keep "interest" a trade secret, something known only by a few, and something not knowable by the many, it is, fine print, it is too complicated on purpose.
Interest is simple.
Interest is nothing but the price on money. If competition is legal, then the price is driven down, and that is simple. It is simple to know why some people work to make money scarce. Once money is made scarce, the price on money can reach for the highest known limit ever in the history of human existence. That is simple stuff. It is interesting to know that capitalists want money to be scarce, on purpose, so as to make money prices go higher, and higher, and higher, in inverse proportion to money scarcity. If no one but a few have it, everyone else will pay anything to get it. Isn't that interesting?
Here is Rothbards dodge:
4For the sake of simplicity, we will here continue the practice of the classical economists of lumping “interest” and “profits” together. Actually, the rate of profit on the market tends, in the long-run, to equal the rate of interest. Short-run profit (and losses) would continue to exist onthe market even if Spooner had his way and the rate of interest (and of
long-run profit) fell to zero. The true nature of the distinction between
interest and profit was not discovered until the work of Frank H. Knight,
Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit (Boston, Mass.: Houghton Mifflin, 1921).