| ||||
| ||||
| Moderated by: Joe Kelley |
|
||||||||||||||
| The Gap | Rating: 
|
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Sat May 20th, 2006 12:28 am |
|
1st Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/ryan5.html Above is curious to me for many reasons. My World Record submission pending is one reason here: http://www.power-independence.com/view_topic.php?id=70&forum_id=6 For this reason: My current 'page view' count is this: 7203 @ 5:06 Friday, May 19, 2006 This forum has 3 members. One may soon cancel membership. The curious part, in my view, concerns a general lack of appreciation for teamwork. One might wish to discuss an issue, in real time, to gain the adantage of current interactive and mutual thinking; like linking one brain up to another brain to compare notes or like finding where one's own thought agree with another one's thoughts to see where both brains have common interests. I call that equitable commerce. One exchanges value for value. One does not dictate that which is valuable according to one and reject all contradiction. Two must negotiate an agreeable measure of value. Is that not the principle of utility applied to intellectual economy i.e. reaching for and finding agreement? How would one know if one must agree to disagree if one never tries to find agreement? Much time and energy can be used up when people elect to issue statements, post them, and expect to be understood. That may certainly work when the audience already understands. What happens when one can recognize a possible flaw in the statement? It seems to me that one then concludes that no flaw exists and therefore there can be no reason to entertain notions of error; a waste of time and energy. So my curiosity is such: Why join my forum? I may never know. I'm making the best of this situation; going for a World record. This is a long winded introduction to my latest challenge to be sent to an author professing knowledge. More than that; the author publishes this knowledge on a well traveled, world wide, web page for all to read and digest; welcome and voluntary association - one way. But there is a link at the bottom. It opens the revolving door. Perhaps it opens into the room called Debate aka negotiated agreement. Time will tell. Another curiosity: I read this: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/ryan4.html That agreed with me and how I see our world. So I thanked the author as no other comment came to mind. I even linked the source; reporting the act to the source. http://www.power-independence.com/view_topic.php?id=56&forum_id=4 Links link. That may be hard to grasp. Links do link. Somewhere somehow links link. A link finds another link; pretty soon, perhaps inevitably, the world becomes borderless. I'll leave that alone for now. This is the present statment I choose to focus upon: Benign or Malignant? by Daniel M. Ryan My view is such: Daniel indentifies a concern and then offers a prognosis. It may help to get all these ducks in a row: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Prognosis prog·no·sis ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr g-n s s) n. pl. prog·no·ses (-s z)
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Benign be·nign ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b -n n ) adj.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Malignant ma·lig·nant ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m -l g n nt) adj.
Please read the orignal link: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/ryan5.html Benign or Malignant? by Daniel M. Ryan I must cut and paste. This must be done when the author does not speak in real time as a function of comparing viewpoints in the effort to find commonality or agreement. One must profess to know what another one thinks when one cannot ask and recieve real time answers to real time contentions. Prognosis?
The Remnant: http://www.aapsonline.org/brochures/isaiah.htm What do we mean by the masses, and what by the Remnant? As the word masses is commonly used, it suggests agglomerations of poor and underprivileged people, laboring people, proletarians. But it means nothing like that; it means simply the majority. The mass-man is one who has neither the force of intellect to apprehend the principles issuing in what we know as the humane life, nor the force of character to adhere to those principles steadily and strictly as laws of conduct; and because such people make up the great, the overwhelming majority of mankind, they are called collectively the masses. The line of differentiation between the masses and the Remnant is set invariably by quality, not by circumstance. The Remnant are those who by force of intellect are able to apprehend these principles, and by force of character are able, at least measurably, to cleave to them. The masses are those who are unable to do either. Back to Daniel M. Ryan: After noting that both laws are subtractive of utility as demonstrated by exchange, the economist has to pull a demur, leaving any attempt at quantification of their effects to the economic historian, or to the political one. This quantification can be precise or vague. Precise is better than vague if the idea is to know. Please read "The disadvantages of being Educated" by Albert J. Nock. Knowing is a process. One cannot 'know' what one is thinking, rather, one simply thinks. The proof is in the pudding. The process is current; not static. The process has value as a utility. The brain is more than a tool, more than a computer on a desk, more than a hammer in the tool box. The brain is a processor like an electric generator; the stuff that comes out is used or lost. The stuff that comes out can injure or benefit and that calculation requires more processing. Errors in calculation result in injury, which is not so bad, inevitable, and, with a simple calculation, a benefit itself. Edison, for example, invented many injuries before inventing a light bulb. One can eliminate all the injuries and eventually find the benefit. One cannot move an inch if one mistakes an injury as a benefit; in fact, one will compound injury with injury, and worse still - one embraces injury as benefit. One may even convince mass man to follow. That remnant, the professors of economy, or whomever, are quite a different animal compared to God's several thousand. For all the faults of the common man or woman there can be one obvious fact common to all - we are born innocent. When garbage goes in, then, garbage will come out and that garbage has one name - falsehood. Question: If our species is immoral, then, how can our species create Equity? My answer is: Our species cannot create Equity if our species is immoral. Next question: Can mankind increase Equity? My answer: Only if our species decreases falsehood. Question: How can mankind decrease falsehood? My answer: Apply the process of knowledge individually and refine that process through equitable communication i.e. Welcome, open, voluntary, and honest debate in real time. Question: Is there any evidence to reinforce a belief in the validity of moral, welcome, open, voluntary, and honest debate? Answer: Yes http://www.lysanderspooner.org/bib_new.htm Above is another example of "The Remnant" describing the efforts of mass man on the road to apply knowledge individually and communicate that knowledge in the effort to maintain a peaceful coexistence. The record describes how it has been done and what went wrong. The free administration of justice was a principle of the common law; and it must necessarily be a part of every system of government which is not designed to be an engine in the hands of the rich for the oppression of the poor. Common law is a function of the common practice of communicating equity. To realize how vital equity is for mankind one need only to take a poll among modern mankind to measure how common the knowledge of equity is currently known to us. That effort merely measures common knowledge; it does not measure common practice. When mankind continues to act morally despite ignorance concerning moral acts, then, the validity of the act is confirmed since people obviously act morally instinctively. Common law, when known by common people, despite common economic hardship adds additional evidence confirming mankinds predisposition toward equity. So, the reader may wonder, what did go wrong?
Mass man was deprived of equity. Man unmade equity. Blaming mass man for the actions of a few is false. Is it not obvous that such accusations are made by the few intentionally? From these statutes it will be seen that, since 1285, seventy years after Magna Carta, the common law right of all free British subjects to eligibility as jurors has been abolished, and the qualifications of jurors have been made a subject of arbitrary legislation. In other words, the government has usurped the authority of selecting the jurors that were to sit in judgment upon its own acts. This is destroying the vital principle of the trial by jury itself, which is that the legislation of the government shall be subjected to the judgment of a tribunal, taken indiscriminately from the whole people, without any choice by the government, and over which the government can exercise no control. If the government can select the jurors, it will, of course, select those whom it supposes will be favorable to its enactments. And an exclusion of any of the freemen from eligibility is a selection of those not excluded. Freemen were made un-free and the means to that end was and continues to be falsehood. It is false, unprincipled, immoral, exclusionary, and criminal to base any question of law or right upon possession of economic power. To suppose that the continuing cycle of human prosperity to human misery is a function of any other cause besides the perversion of common moral principle, falsely, by the destructive exclusionary abuse of economic power by the few upon the many is a supposition lacking evidence of any kind beyond mere fancy based upon ignorance or simple and willful deception designed to maintain the power to abuse; to perpetuate crime. Mass man is moral, if crude, if vulgar, if dirty, if rude, if base, and even if ignorant. Mass man is not however predisposed to crime. That is a function of intelligent design; fraud and evil. I’ve spent my day writing crap in response to crap. It stinks. Leave mankind free and mankind will be equitable someway and somehow; the Remnant merely accounts the exchange – one for one as accurately as humanly possible. If the future is to be won for liberty, prosperity, for posterity, then, it will be won equitably. Otherwise it will be falsified into a miserable oblivion. One might read before jumping to conclusions. If that is not economically possible, then, one might ask for help; an equitable person will give as much as taken – no more and no less.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat May 20th, 2006 09:37 am |
|
2nd Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
In order to make sense of human action there must be a precise goal in mind describing what constitutes nonsense. In other words: If human action is contradictory then one must identify the contradiction if the idea is to resolve the contradiction. Simply: Human beings conflict with other human beings. In other words: Human beings fail to negotiate agreement and worse: human beings fail to negotiate an agreement to disagree. A failure to negotiate agreement will cease human cooperation for the people who fail to negotiate agreement. A failure to negotiate an agreement to disagree, once negotiated agreement has failed, results in conflict. Conflict is human interaction resulting from the failure to negotiate an agreement to disagree once the failure to agree has failed. Example: A person or persons live near another person or persons. One person meets another person on a road that has only enough room for one person to pass through. Picture a valley between two properties. It takes one hour to pass through the choke point. Both people meet in the center, one half hour into the Gap, on a blind hill. Perhaps both people are driving vehicles filled with property to be sold to each others neighbors. Both people reach the top of the hill and meet. They both stop to avoid a collision. If either person proceeds the other will have to back up or the collision will occur. If both proceed the collision will occur with greater force. Is it not obvious that one must negotiate? Is it not further obvious that one cannot negotiate alone? In order to make sense of human action, in order to accomplish that task and have the remotest chance of success, one must negotiate an answer with another one. If one professes to make sense of human action without negotiation, then, one might find reason to simply shoot the other human being in the head, take all his property, and reverse all his efforts to proceed peacefully. One might endeavor to project one's own mind into the mind of another to figure out what is going on in the silent head - putting self in another's shoes; so to speak. That is an imprecise ability, at best, to accurately make sense of that which cannot be known i.e. thoughts residing in another person's head. It is a clear prejudice for self and one's own ability to know better than another about another; even better than the other's own thoughts, if, one refuses to listen. Have I defined the mind of a dictator? Is there any sense in the practice of exclusion? Beware of someone who refuses to negotiate. That someone may be suffering from falsehood or worse; one may have met a dictator or worse - one may have met a dictator’s helper who is merely following orders. Dictators can be bribed. A fervent believer will do as ordered and the first order is to refuse to listen. This diatribe, not to be listened to at all, rather, this is just a statement open for discussion on a road having no boundaries, an honest, welcome, open, voluntary expression of thought to be ignored, rejected, or whatever. Perhaps this diatribe is misplaced. It is a public forum. I have linked a specific communication offered by a specific person. Perhaps my efforts to put myself in another’s shoes has reached a measure of despotism. I may be guilty of error. My intent is to negotiate. My cart is filled with equity. My cart may be filled with garbage; to others. Others won't know what is in my cart, of course, if they refuse to look in it. I am curious as to why one would be inclined to refuse to look. Perhaps we are all too busy. My diatribe is, so far, a huge cart with a very small item in the corner. I'll pass more time filling up my cart while I listen for the voice of others on this road that I call liberty. Liberty is life earned. Time to read
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat May 20th, 2006 09:47 am |
|
3rd Post |
|
danielmryan Guest
|
What I read above looks, to me, more like a commentary upon what I have written than a direct challenge, to be honest. The way in which I used the term "The Remnant" is consistent with the way Frank Chodorov used it. The Remnant keeps knowledge alive when the masses thirst after ignorance; they refuse to buy into a popular ideal which is built upon sand. They also keep alive ideals which are scorned. All of this implies that a Remnant is a group which is shunned by most. Rather than being a cabal of the powerful, the Remnant is an underground-by-circumstance of the powerless. They are both above the masses, in terms of connection to the real or to an ideal, and below the masses, in terms of political power and influence. If a Remnant tries to exhort the public, then its members see the masses as temporarily deluded (as a result of being misled in some cases), as well as capable of separating truth from fancy in less excited times.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat May 20th, 2006 10:54 am |
|
4th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
How can I challenge directly? Example: My assumption concerning the term “Remnant” was ill conceived; perhaps. It was an indirect challenge now addressed with greater precision. Should I read Frank Chodorov in order to challenge Daniel M. Ryan? No. I challenge words from the source of words and so far you’re the only person to accept the challenge on this forum despite the 7000 page views to date. The question then is: Are you up for a challenge? I would say: Are you up to continue the challenge; however, apparently, there has been no direct challenge. Words often fail to communicate accurately. If you are up for a challenge, then, I can offer some starting points to be considered only as suggestions. My intent is to figure out why I think a ‘cabal’ exists and perpetuates within what one might term: The Remnant. I’ve been seeking this information for many years and to date there has been no current examples of resolutions for obvious contradictions. I add that last sentence merely to suggest that my intolerance for innuendo is a product of experience. If the challenge is, to be, specific to your recent article: After noting that both laws are subtractive of utility as demonstrated by exchange, the economist has to pull a demur, leaving any attempt at quantification of their effects to the economic historian, or to the political one. This quantification can be precise or vague. Are you an economist? If so, then, by what principle do you quantify economy? Possible examples: Science, Honesty, Equity, Cost, Utility, Value, Falsehood, Violence, Practicality, Necessity, etc. If the idea is to profess the ability to prescribe an accurate prognosis concerning future economic health, then, it is reasonable to point out that such an ability must be founded upon principle or is the piece simply a wild ass guess? No offense intended. I can ask these questions openly, honestly, and humorously. Is there a principle involved or not? Above is one suggestion if the challenge is recognized as a challenge to a specific statement in a specific piece by a specific person using specific words quoted. I am inclined to get past all that and go for the root: If you are not an economist, then, perhaps you can find one willing to defend their economic 'theory'. Meanwhile the prognosis remains uncertain and with a little help: those future events may become a new age of prosperity never before deemed possible by current economists with their current false self-prophesizing and self-fulfilling 'theories' based upon falsehood and not much more. Fear not. These are words. One can get past the falsehood and see a reasonably possible future prosperity – one that does not require domestic rollback or a mass drop into mass penury first.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat May 20th, 2006 05:30 pm |
|
5th Post |
|
danielmryan Guest
|
The degree I got is in economics. The basic "unit" which economics uses is utility; price and quantity of a good is also used, but is considered derivative from utility. As far as quantification of economics is concerned: I hew to the Austrian School, whose theory of value is the subjective theory, which states that value, resulting from preferences whose source is in people's heads, is not quantifiable - not even measurable directly. Thus, utility is not quantifiable. What can be quantified is the result of transactions past. An example of this quantification can be found in the listing of prices and the quantity of shares traded of stocks in your newspaper. These transactions already having taken place, the record of them is now part of history, which won't change because it's impossible to change the past from the present. But any results from this record-discovering and -keeping cannot be used to predict the prices and quantities of the future, because people's valuations can (and do) change, thus making it inevitable that the same good will be exchanged for a different price and in a different quantity. The unquantifiability of the sorce of utility of goods (and services) implies that there is no way that a function, whose initial values are derived from the past, can accurately predict buying and selling behavior of the future.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat May 20th, 2006 06:57 pm |
|
6th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Please forgive my exuberance. I could frame your response and place it on my wall if my inclination were partial to remembrances. I do not exaggerate in stating that my search for a voice willing to defend their economic 'theories' has been much like Don Quixote’s battles. Since reading Socialism by Mises awhile ago, and since reading Equitable Commerce by Josiah Warren it has been my goal to resolve specific contradictions. Now I may have an opportunity to do so if you are willing to continue. First I must make more clear as to what this guiding principle behind your theory is and is not. I am at a loss. I've read and reread your reply and can find no principle. I don't wish to put worlds in your mouth so I can't conclude that, according to you, utility is not or is a principle. I think it is one and one that can be very accurately measured. I can't conclude that value is a principle either; as far as I can tell. I can't conclude that accounting is a principle either. The only thing that appears to be conclusive is that economics, according to my interpretation of your words, is synonymous with chaos and therefore lacking any principle. It may appear as if I have a Huge Chip on my shoulder and I can only try to explain this effect. As far as I have been able to gather so far; the principle behind Austrian Economics is this: “every individual will attempt to secure his own requirements as completely as possible to the exclusion of others.” Carl Menger (1840 -1921) My interpretation of that (neither confirmed nor denied by any current economic dabbler), is the principle called greed. The securing part I can interpret as 'production' - but the exclusion of others part is very difficult to grasp without arriving at the greed principle. There is one more thing that explains my "chip" and that concerns the obvious need, in any economic thought, to arrive at a price or from another angle; to arrive at a cost. Which do you prefer: cost or price? If the "theory" prefers price, then, is the following an example of the principle that one uses to arrive at price? http://www.lysanderspooner.org/bib_new.htm The principle, then, of the common law, was, that every freeman, or freeborn male Englishman, of adult age, &c;., was eligible to sit in juries, by virtue of his civil freedom, or his being a member of the state, or body politic. Rut the principle of the present English statutes is, that a man shall have a right to sit in juries because he owns lands in fee‑simple. At the common law a man was born to the right to sit in juries. By the present statutes he buys that right when he buys his land. And thus this, the greatest of all the political rights of an Englishman, has become a mere article of merchandise; a thing that is bought and sold in the market for what it will bring.This: A thing that is bought and sold in the market for what it will bring. In other words: Price is what a thing on the market will bring. Is that the principle behind your economic theory? In other words: Does your education inspire you to calculate the price of a thing based upon how much it will bring? If that is not understandable, then, I can try other words. If you are inclined to avoid the question, then, I think I can understand your reluctance and no matter what this remains a defining moment for me. It is wonderful to be welcomed into the membership of those who are afforded an ear. Last edited on Sun May 21st, 2006 11:55 am by Joe Kelley |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun May 21st, 2006 10:11 am |
|
7th Post |
|
danielmryan Guest
|
I can clear up the vagueness: 1. The present-day Austrian school uses Mises' definition of economics, one which is more realistic than Menger's: People act in order to remove a felt uneasiness. This eliminates Menger's stipulation that such action has to be to the exclusion of others. It doesn't have to be. The trouble with Menger's definition is that it excludes co-operative economic effort, which a sound definition of economic activity should not, as many such efforts are co-operative. [Simple example: a barn-raising.] 2. Costs are prices, and prices are costs. They're just named differently by the people in the stream of trade, as consistent with their own priorities. Since "price" is the most common term, it is conventional to say that costs are prices and stick with "price."
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun May 21st, 2006 11:54 am |
|
8th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Vagueness remains on my end in this exercise of equitable exchange. I can say with confidence that my cost remains unpaid. Perhaps you can continue to provide greater utility with more accurate communication. If costs are prices and prices are costs then is it accurate to observe that cost can be the limit of price as a principled approach toward calculating economy? Example: The barn raising entrepreneur calculates costs and arrives at a number of costs required to produce the barn. The barn is built after all costs are paid and now the barn is ready for sale. Does the barn owner fix the price at cost and if not, then, have we arrived at that elusive principle that has not yet be clarified? This: Price is what a thing on the market will bring. In other words: Does the entrepreneur fix the price at cost since costs are prices and prices are costs or does the entrepreneur add more costs to be paid by the potential new owner of the barn? If so, then, what is the principle used to calculate those additional costs that are over and above the cost of the barn? My confusion is not specious from my perspective because the principle of fixing price to cost has been tested as a means by which commerce can be actively improved toward equity whereby one can manage to exchange with another one based upon sound moral principle rather than the more common unprincipled and exclusionary practice. Furthermore: those experiments in equitable commerce have documented significant additional principles that reinforce the utility, practicality, and efficiency of the cost principle. I can offer greater clarity, utility perhaps, if one is inclined to inspect the cost principle closer and compare the cost principle to whatever other principle, or lack of principle, is used to pass costs from one, the barn owner, to the other, the prospective barn owner. In the effort to reinforce past communication it may help to note that the barn seller can utilize resent and similar exchanges between barn producers and barn consumers, whatever, when calculating a more accurate cost in determining the cost that will be paid by the consumer. The principle that remains not clearly identified in this current exchange concerns a common practice utilized by human beings for some time now and perhaps as far back as recorded history is discernible whereby a seller adds a cost to the price that is over and above any costs determined by the sellers stated, recorded, calculated, and advertised cost. In other words: What is the principle used to increase price above any costs assumed by the seller that is, instead, an added cost based upon the buyers ability to pay costs? Perhaps I am not utilizing language accurately. It would help greatly if any interested party reading this and understanding my concern, if they, would speak up. Please allow me to reinforce my concern with a relevant issue: From here: http://thechinadesk.blogspot.com/2006/05/real-rather-than-imaginary-threat.html Comment: Neoconservative China Threat theorists responsible for America's strategic policy are determined to cast a non-aggressive, free market capitalist China as a "New Evil Empire," and the long-suffering Chinese people as 21st century counterparts of Genghis Khan's Mongol hordes. Note: "free market capitalist' It may be a good idea to be more accurate in defining just exactly what is or is not free market commerce. Capitalism has adopted a few orphans who have not marketed freely by any stretch of even the most active imaginations unless one is apt to include the freedom to deceive and the freedom to harm as an integral and necessary function, or principle, within the scope of free market commerce or free market capitalism. My point of vagueness: Commerce or Capitalism Principled economics or unprincipled economics Accuracy or expediency A historical concern (adopted orphans of “capitalist” economics): http://www.reformed-theology.org/html/books/bolshevik_revolution/ My point of vagueness: What are the principles used to calculate costs paid by the buyer that are costs not paid by the seller?
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun May 21st, 2006 05:17 pm |
|
9th Post |
|
danielmryan Guest
|
Marginal utility. Try reading up on it here: http://www.mises.org/etexts/EconReasoning.pdf . This E-book is a basic introduction to the present-day Austrian School of Economics. It should answer most of your questions, and its recommended reading list should point you to books where you can find answers to the rest of your questions.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun May 21st, 2006 05:58 pm |
|
10th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Thanks. I've been down this road. If the assumption is that I am asking questions because I have no clue as to what the answer might be, as if the last 20 years of my life has been a ride on a merry go round, then, I can see why people continually avoid answering my questions directly and prefer to simply direct me elsewhere. I had this crazy notion that a person critical enough to publish commentary publicly would be willing to defend their viewpoints publicly. No matter. I can continue doing what I have been doing and if you don't mind I may add a few more public access comments to this thread specific to my concerns and proposing to guess at what the current economic theorists may think about those specific items already started in this topic on this forum. Such as: What is the current and common principle utilized to determine cost or, from another angle, what exactly is it that is infecting the organism called humanity? One must be economical. There is no alternative. Even if one chooses to avoid economic thought, then, that decision is an economical one, and one, that will accumulate costs. All is economical as time goes by so the malignancy our species suffers is an economical disease and it is spread by economic professors. I have my own sources that confirm my own moral conscience on the principles involved in economic practice and promulgation. The current Austrians exclude me. Like this: http://austrianforum.com/index.php?showtopic=737 Despite that continuing exclusion, and as I have already stated, I’ve read much of the past Austrian’s works and have found, digested, commented upon, and tried repeatedly to discuss, those works to no avail. So my window of opportunity was short lived but rather enjoyable and as a bonus my World Record won’t gather too much notoriety. Thanks again.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed May 24th, 2006 12:33 pm |
|
11th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
"The Labor Theory of Value" is a straw man. I checked the link posted and found what looks like another 'economists' viewpoint on what appears to be a 'theory' based upon a pricing scheme, in general usage, that limits price to: That which a thing will bring. In other words the price is determined by how much a buyer is willing to pay for something. The principle of adjusting price to the buyers willingness to pay more costs than the costs involved in producing the product is called nothing by the promoters of that principle to my knowledge. I've asked. To the critics of that economic 'theory' that utilizes the power to transfer costs from the producer to the buyer do label that as a principle. The critics call that unlimited price principle as: The value principle. Price is set to the value determined by the buyer or buyers trying to get the last one of a scarce item. I call it scarcenomics or the scum bag theory of value. I'm a new age critic. The old age critics like Josiah Warren, Stephen Pearl Andrews, perhaps Zeno, Aristotle, and certainly W.B. Greene - Those guys; they criticized the scum bag theory of value and scarcenomics too. Those guys explained in detail and conducted controlled experiments successfully, and, found numerous sources of historical references confirming a principle or two that actually does work to promote peaceful economic prosperity. So the thing is: Two 'theories' exist. One is proven to work. One is based upon natural law and basic moral principles. One is simple and easy to understand and can be explained fully in a small volume or pamphlet. The other is highly complex and bound upon undeniable invasive aggressive use of violence and fraud. One is called Equitable Commerce. The other is called nothing ever certainly not by the promoters of it. One points out exactly where the other goes wrong and why it is wrong. The other completely avoids any discussion on principle. What is done, on principle, is the construction of a fabricated bogey man called "The Labor Theory of Value" which only exists in the minds of invasive aggressive promoters of the other nameless, faceless, and phantom 'Scum Bag Theory of Value" that is: Scarcenomics. I'll Google that term: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=scarcenomics http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=scarcenomics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=scarcenomics Scarce - Economics http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=scarce scarce ( P ) Pronunciation Key (skârs) adj. scarc·er, scarc·est 1. Insufficient to meet a demand or requirement; short in supply: Fresh vegetables were scarce during the drought. 2. Hard to find; absent or rare: Steel pennies are scarce now except in coin shops. ec·o·nom·ics ( P ) Pronunciation Key ( k -n m ks, k -) n. 1. (used with a sing. verb) The social science that deals with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services and with the theory and management of economies or economic systems. 2. (used with a sing. or pl. verb) Economic matters, especially relevant financial considerations: “Economics are slowly killing the family farm” (Christian Science Monitor). Here is then: The first usage of the term Scarceconomics: Definition: 1. The theory whereby the haves manage to program the have nots into thinking there is a need to continue the flow of power; for their own good from them, the have nots, to the theorists of Scarceconomics. 2. A nebulous reincarnation of the devil in human form. 3. A phantom 'theory' having no actual professors of the theory only 'bogey' men who are scum bags responsible for not saving and are guilty of a general lack of economic knowledge despite their labors to produce just about everything not yet fully automated. 4. A nebulous phantom 'theory' that proposes to limit the supply of products below common sense and thereby accelerate the flow of power from the consumers to the producers of the nebulous phantom scum bag theory. Also known as Scarceonomics: Not yet googling: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=scarceonomics Not yet defined by the general population: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=scarceonomics Scarceonomics defined by a discoverer of scarceonomics: 1. An ill conceived short term practice of calculating sales volume in the effort to maximize the flow of power from the consumer to the producer of scarceonomics. 2. Predatory commerce designed to liquidate individual power and move that liquidated power to a central location for the purpose of utilizing that method to accelerate the flow of power from the target group of individuals to the collection agency. 3. Destructive power utilized to accumulate centralized destructive power and then accelerate the flow of power from the many to the few. 4. Destructive power used to produce ever greater supplies of destructive power wielded by the producers of scarceonomics. 5. The theory of value that proposes to limit knowledge of economics and utilize the scarcity of knowledge to a competitive advantage in commerce. 6. The promotion of falsehood for purposes of fraud. 7. A political and economic fraud that was once the bane of mankind. 8. Ancient history during a past age when productive capacity depended greatly on human labor and strict discipline. I've got much more to discuss on this topic if a promoter of their favorite economic theory is willing to defend their own theories concerning economics. What I cannot do is defend some nebulous myth such as "The Labor Theory of Value" since that Straw Man is a hoax and a construction of Scarceonomic or Scarceconomic theorists who may have once roamed the planet but their breed have apparently become extinct. I can try to submit my new term to Wikipedia to see if that historical curiosity catches on. Try a search for Power-Independence. Google measures something. Some might call it utility. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Power-Independence Results 1 - 10 of about 21,000 for Power-Independence. (0.30 seconds) Last edited on Wed May 24th, 2006 12:42 pm by Joe Kelley |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed May 24th, 2006 03:33 pm |
|
12th Post |
|
danielmryan Guest
|
You would have to construct a theory of your own, and then defend it against your critics, or else show clearly why economics as it is now is either logically contradictory or false to fact. Positing a better alternative requires coming up with one, and showing it to be better than what the field has to offer now.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed May 24th, 2006 04:15 pm |
|
13th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Daniel, I have this mode of conduct. It goes like this: I am stupid until proven otherwise. That works for me. I really appreciate help with the proving part of the method. So, when a person manages to help me, which is not often, I tend to greet that help with an elevated interest. Example: You would have to construct a theory of your own, and then defend it against your critics, or else show clearly why economics as it is now is either logically contradictory or false to fact. Positing a better alternative requires coming up with one, and showing it to be better than what the field has to offer now. I would not have to do any of the above. However that has already been done many times already. I've even offered my own versions. For example: One might 'think' that money in common usage now is something that conforms to their own perception of it. Someone might write a whole book on the matter and for some strange reason that someone might even make a living at promoting that perception simply because that perception is common and for no other reason whatsoever. Fact need not be considered one tiny bit. Another one might point out, to anyone interested in a more accurate perception, that money has one common natural property that can be measured physically and therefore can be proven as a physical fact. One might find that such an interest is counter to the interests supporting the other 'theory'. That may seem like a contradiction; certainly contradictory to this: Positing a better alternative requires coming up with one, and showing it to be better than what the field has to offer now. One would be inclined to respond to that with this: A more accurate perception concerning what IS or IS NOT accurate is self-evident only to those who have an interest in perceiving what IS or IS NOT accurate. And one might also try to communicate this: Even if one does know what IS and IS NOT more accurate, then, one may not want anyone else to know until such time as one is able to profit from that advantage. Then one might also add: Once the flow of value starts; from the disadvantaged toward the advantaged one, then, it is accurate to note that the advantaged one will be less likely to promote the communication of accuracy (his or her advantage). And further: Once the advantaged one becomes dependent upon that advantage and that steady flow of value, then, one may actively promote the inaccurate perception almost as if one were to lose touch with one's own conscience and to that end one might try to project such failures in moral conduct upon their victims; like calling their victims Money Cranks or some such false label, or straw man, to be conveniently ripped apart with accurate self-evident logical rhetoric. All that and more can occur if one is to discuss an issue rather than simply dictate facts as to what one must or must not do in reality. Meanwhile: the age of enlightenment in free and equitable commerce is growing strong despite all efforts to manipulate that natural human common interest into scarcity. One might even conclude that the cat is already out of the bag and nothing short of nuclear war can put it back in. Falsehood, and the inequity that follows, is rapidly becoming less fashionable. You can do as you please. I'll do the same. If our interests agree, then, we have earned an equitable measure of commerce. Who would insist upon anything less: the money crank ungrateful angry mob socialist ignoramuses who can’t save a dime for lack of economic wisdom? We can agree on one thing, I think, but that remains somewhat elusive. I am the stupid one. Last edited on Wed May 24th, 2006 04:24 pm by Joe Kelley |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Current time is 08:13 pm | |
| Power Independence > Fight Night > Debate > The Gap | Top |
