| Moderated by: Joe Kelley | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
michael.suede, I am going to assume that you mean well, as well as I mean, and I am going to assume that you will not willfully distort the meanings of my words, and I am going to assume that you will not then purposefully publish your version of the meanings of my word fraudulently, claiming that your version of my words is the true meaning of my words, despite all my efforts to the contrary. I have learned that publishing the last sentence is my way of avoiding the first shot - a defensive sentence. I met Mr. Block and I can describe the meeting to you, if you care to know my angle of view on that meeting. Instead I will inform you that your words, as far as I can tell, fail to address a question I ask, and a question you may claim to be answering. Your words either dodge the question, by some accident, or your words willfully dodge the question because that is what you set out to do: dodge the question - or some other explanation. I don't know why the question I ask isn't answered yet, I'm offering competitive guesses. The question is posed to any person generally, but the question is posed to the people who claim to be the authorities of political economy, such as the already mentioned Mr. Libertarian (the second, if I have the lineage understood). The question posed to the supposed experts on political economy seeks an answer: as to the form, quality, characteristic, make-up, cost, or whatever psychological and physical attributes constitute money once it wins in a free market competition. That is one sentence; one question, one wording, one example, the question is easy to understand, and the answer is a form of money, not a dodge of the question, the answer is a form of money. Which money wins? The question can be three words. Which money wins? The answer could be that gold wins, and then gold can be inspected for it's winning qualities, and its winning costs, compared to any known challenger. Is gold supposed to be the answer? Is that it? What are the winning qualities? What are the winning costs? The answer isn't among the following: 1. Money will be what it is, once it wins the free market challenge. 2. Money will be what the market will bear. 3. quoting: The best money is the money the market choses to use. 4. There is no "best money" - only market money. We know that historically, when people are free to chose a money, they chose gold. We also know that when people are free to chose, they always chose some form of a commodity as a money. I can address those non-answers quoted, as they appear to be offered as answers to the question asked - as far as I can guess. I will address the sentences, not the person who authored the sentences, I will, purposefully, willfully, and consciously address the words written in those sentences, and leave the person out of the appraisal of the words - seeking meaning - and I want to know the answer to my question, so that is why I will offer my interpretation of the response so far, and I will welcome a reply that may improve my understanding of the intended meaning within the sentences being carefully inspected. First: There is no "best money" I've been on the Austrian's former web page and I was immorally treated by the people who ran that web page. They lied to me. They lied about me, publicly. they twisted my words. They presented their twisted versions of my words as my meaning of my words. They manufactured a false motive and they attributed the false motive to me, again publicly, and then they punished the person who they claimed was the person guilty of the false motives they falsely attributed to me. They had asked for and received, from me, competitive, reasoned, commentary, and having not heard what they wanted to hear from me, they fabricated an excuse to cover up their abuse of me; as they then ridiculed, and removed me from having access to the public access web page they ran, which was then my only source of defense against their libel - excepting my current efforts to set the record straight, on my own web page, speaking personally with other people, on other web pages, and where ever, and when ever anyone will listen to the facts. They, the supposed experts on political economy, The Austrians running the old forum, kept publishing my work on their site, for some time, and I had linked that source as a source for the facts. That is no longer possible, as far as I know. I will publish this reply here, and I will mirror this reply on my own web page, as a general defensive action, learned from experience with The Austrians who claim to be proponents of a free market; but in words and deeds, when they are faced with a competitive viewpoint, they resort to the same old abuse of force, to use force in the work of perpetuating monopoly power, using power to force out competition where ever, and when ever competition arises - they lie. Back to the sentence, and the initial volley: There is no "best money" That selection of words has no context in the effort to answer the question asked, as far as I can tell. In other words. that answer does not address the question I asked, it dodges the question I ask, and it places in place of the question I asked a different question. The question I asked was not a meaningless, ridiculous, or otherwise ignorant question that has no answer, as those words may suggest, if that is what someone thinks that those words suggest, if someone were to miss-associate those words with the question I asked. Here is the question I asked, the same question quoted in this forum topic, the same question quoted by you, Michael, as you (I assume) offer an answer to my question: What is ideal money, or, in other words, if a free market existed, and the force of competition was a powerful force, because a free market existed, which money would be the highest quality money, at the lowest cost, or, in other words again, which money would gain the most market share, what form would that money take, in that free market, as competition forced quality, of money, up, and as competition forced cost, of money, down? Here is the first set of words that I am currently addressing: There is no "best money" Who asked a question that has no answer? Who asked if there is something that doesn't exist? Is there "best money"? Who asked that question that has no answer; since there isn't any "best money"? I did not ask such a meaningless question, so, why does that question now appear in this thread, and why is that question now associated, closely, with my question. I'd like to see a much greater distance between that apparently silly question and my question - if humanly possible. I don't know who would ask such a question. The only person I know, currently, who would ask such a question is you, since you answered the question that someone else asked, someone I don't know, and it was not me who asked if there is a "best money" when, obviously, according to you, there isn't a "best money". Next: only market money Now, and I have to ask, since the words appear to suggest that there is a connection, or a bond, between a thing called market and money: what is that bond? I don't know. I am asking: what is the bond that connects money to that market thing? Are your words intending to suggest that the market thing owns money, or are you suggesting that the market thing produces money, or are you suggesting that the market thing employs money, or are you reporting some other connection that connects money to the market thing? I don't know, and I want to be very clear about the words that you write, again, I've learned, the hard way, to be very careful when dealing with people who are connected to the Austrian Economists group of people. I also want to be careful in avoiding collective punishment, or prejudice, or falsely attributing negative attributes upon an innocent person. I will work now on the first sentence, as a whole sentence: There is no "best money" - only market money. I have no idea, as to how that whole sentence connects to the question I asked. That whole sentence has, according to my understanding of the question I asked, nothing to do with the question I asked. That is a curious sentence; since it has nothing to do with the question I asked, as far as I can tell. It is an even more curious question, as I look at it, and as I try to understand the meaning in it. I can set that aside now, and I can turn to the next sentence, in part, and as a whole sentence. Next: We know that historically, when people are free to chose a money, they chose gold. I am not in the "we" group there, as in: "We know" etc. I can offer one historical source of evidence that is contrary to what is known by whomever knows the things that "We know" about gold; things I do not know. I painstakingly bookmark these sources of evidence - over time. Source: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=labadie;cc=labadie;rgn=full%20text;idno=2916966.0001.001;didno=2916966.0001.001;view=image;seq=00000001 The source speaks for itself, and my only intent at this point is to accurately discriminate between the people who know one thing from those who do not know that thing, and/or people who offer evidence that is contrary to the thing known. You, and an exclusive group of people may know that people who are free to choose money, choose gold, and those who don't know that fact, are not in that exclusive group, and those who offer information contrary to that knowledge are people who offer information that contradicts that understanding, or that exclusive perspective. There are those who think that those who are free to choose money choose gold, and then there are those who do not think such a thing. There is more than ample evidence to suggest a contrary viewpoint: that people don't choose gold as money when better money is a choice. The point of the question is to begin quantifying the quality and the cost of money choices, and then directly compare competitive examples, and then better understand which money wins, and why which money wins, because one money is obviously higher in quality, compared to another, and one money is obviously lower in cost, compared to another, one wins, the other does not win, because choice forces quality up, and choice forces cost down, when choice is a choice. Next is another whole sentence (my eyes are getting used to the small letters, it is morning, and I am old, and I have not yet resorted to zooming in): We also know that when people are free to chose, they always chose some form of a commodity as a money. There is the word choice again, the choice to use the word "we", when clearly that word is an exclusive, and not inclusive, group of people. Who is this exclusive group of people who know these things that are not known by me, and not known by many other people? I have to ask; because I don't know. I can guess, but that would be highly subject to error on my part, if I were to choose to guess, instead of choosing to ask. Here is a source, and one of many sources, whereby the people offering the information are obviously not referring to a commodity money, exclusively, when they refer to historical money choices: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXt1cayx0hs There are many other sources. There is a serious problem associated with the claim that we know what choices people make when people make choices, and that problem is that some people are criminals and therefore some people enforce "choices" upon people; so claiming that we know what choices have been made by people choosing to use money, in a free market, is done so, the claim is done so, without an accurate accounting of who made what choice and why, so as to accurately identify how free, or how less than free, such a choice was, or is, in any case whatsoever, past, present, or future. What does all that have to do with my question? My question seeks qualitative and quantitative answers, specific answers. I can answer my question. I am not an Austrian Economist. I don't have a license to speak for us; but I can answer my question. If "we" is the exclusive group of people who only look at instances where commodity money is chosen, such as gold, and "we" are The Austrian Economist group of people, then that can be known, and so that is an exclusive group of people who choose gold as money, because that is what they do, exclusively. The answer from that group, exclusively, would then be: gold is chosen, by that group, as the highest quality money, at the lowest cost. From that point, if that is the answer, that gold is the highest quality money, at the lowest cost, according to all the people in that exclusive group, then another competitive currency could be inspected to see if anyone in that exclusive group would evaluate the competitor, once presented, once qualitatively measured, and once quantitatively measured, higher than gold, for whatever reason, and the reasoning could then be known. Why choose A over B? Is A higher in quality? Is A lower in cost? What is the measure of quality? What is the measure of cost, for gold, or for the next competitor offered to that exclusive group? I can't get to those questions without getting past my initial question. This question: What is ideal money, or, in other words, if a free market existed, and the force of competition was a powerful force, because a free market existed, which money would be the highest quality money, at the lowest cost, or, in other words again, which money would gain the most market share, what form would that money take, in that free market, as competition forced quality, of money, up, and as competition forced cost, of money, down? I want to know if anyone can answer my question. If the Austrians claim to have answers to political economy questions; then why can't they answer my questions? Is gold the answer? If so, then say so, if not, then please answer the question, and then add a qualitative measure for quality, and please add a quantitative measure for cost, so as to offer a measure of competition. I can then offer a competitive measure, and both competitors can be relatively measured at that point, and that point is yet to occur. I paid for a seat at a two day conference in Las Vegas, the same place I met Mr. Libertarian #2, the same place I met Hans Herman Hoppe, the same place I saw Lew Rockwell, same place I heard Ron Paul speak, and the same place I filled a basket full of questions solicited by the people putting on the show, and not one of my questions were directly answered, and only one was indirectly answered, despite mysterious words that could have been interpreted as claims to answer the questions I asked: someone said that they would get to the hard questions on the second day, they made that claim on the first day, and as far as I know the majority of questions filling the basket were my questions, two days went by, none of my questions were tabled, or answered. My questions had to do with China, The Internet, and Money - much of the same questions I keep asking, and the same questions that keep getting dodged. Please consider explaining a curious word choice in the sentence that does not address my question; whereby the word choice is "always" - which is an absolute word, having no other possible meaning - it is absolute - it is always. they always chose some form of a commodity as a money. For that statement to be true, in context, the entire history of human existence would have to be, in every case whereby a free market existed, people choosing commodity money over every other competitive money, in every case, always. Who, in any case, decides when a free market exists, and who decides when the opposite occurs, when a choice to use something other than commodity money is a choice forced upon them by un-free market conditions? they always chose some form of a commodity as a money. Who is "they"? Is the word chosen to point to an exclusive number of people, such as Austrian Economists, or the people running The Roman Empire? What is the following an example of? http://tmh.floonet.net/pdf/jwarren.pdf I don't want to divert attention too far away from the question I keep asking; the same question that has not yet been answered by any of the Austrian Economists, but the above link offers an answer to the question I ask, and I see a need to defend against possible resorts to miss-characterization, in case that may happen soon. The Austrian Economists, the one's I know about so far, claim that there is this thing that they call The Labor Theory of Value, and then they attach that claim of that theory onto people who they say are people who believe in their Labor Theory of Value. I want to defensively state that I do not believe in the Austrian Economic Labor Theory of Value if anyone tries to pin that tail on me. I can also state that the above link, that does answer my question, is not an example of The Labor Theory of Value as told by Austrian Economists. The above link is what it is, it speaks for itself, it does not need an Austrian Economist to write a different version of it, for whatever reason an Austrian Economist may decide is cause for such an effort. The link is one, of many, answers to my question. There are many competitors for money market share, in more, or less, free markets, over time, and looking at the winners can begin to quantitatively, and qualitatively, measure both quality, which is forced up by competition, and cost, which is forced down by competition. Gold has some very poor qualities as money compared to many competitors, one of which is the cost gold requires in maintaining ownership of it, so if gold is the answer offered by an Austrian Economist, from that exclusive group, then, having that answer from a representative of that exclusive group could begin to explain why gold, with the costs associated with gold, wins the competition over a less costly money. The money in the link, for example, is much less costly when compared to gold, and that is one reason for not choosing gold in that case. A. Gold (if that is the answer) B. A less expensive alternative (such as the link provided) My question again: What is ideal money, or, in other words, if a free market existed, and the force of competition was a powerful force, because a free market existed, which money would be the highest quality money, at the lowest cost, or, in other words again, which money would gain the most market share, what form would that money take, in that free market, as competition forced quality, of money, up, and as competition forced cost, of money, down? In order to answer the question there must be cases where a free market, by some measure, exists, and then there is a money that exists, and then the question asked can be answered. The answer will measurably quantify money quality and money cost. Where is the answer to my question; according to an Austrian Economist? So far, unless I missed something, and I was careful in the effort to find an answer, I see no qualitative, or quantitative, answer - yet. The ball is back in your court. P.S. I did not go to the Walter Block link. I personally met the person, I personally asked the person some of my questions, and I see no reason to return to that source of information - not yet - quoted words may stand on their own, and the messenger is irrelevant. |
|||||||||||
