Comments on: Robert Higgs http://antiwar.com/radio/2008/08/21/robert-higgs/ Interviews of foreign policy experts, writers and activists. Sun, 08 Nov 2009 05:43:52 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Higgs: Why Did the Great Depression Last So Long? | The Beacon http://antiwar.com/radio/2008/08/21/robert-higgs/comment-page-1/#comment-2703 Higgs: Why Did the Great Depression Last So Long? | The Beacon Mon, 29 Sep 2008 22:08:16 +0000 http://antiwar.com/radio/?p=696#comment-2703 [...] Robert Higgs helps us all understand in this great interview by Scott Horton at Antiwar Radio. They discuss the relationship between the inflation of World War One, the roaring ‘20’s and the Great Depression, Fed chief Ben Strong’s deal with the Bank of England’s Montague Norman to inflate in the 1920s in order to help England and how this created the stock market bubble (and others) in the 20s, some of the ways that the near-totalitarian New Deal interventions of Wilsonian Republican Herbert Hoover and Wilsonian Democrat Franklin Roosevelt compounded and prolonged the depression, the myth that World War II ended the Great Depression, the Korean War and switch from World War to Cold War, the state’s scare tactics to strong-arm government growth, chaotic interventionism in the market and the status of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. [...] [...] Robert Higgs helps us all understand in this great interview by Scott Horton at Antiwar Radio. They discuss the relationship between the inflation of World War One, the roaring ‘20’s and the Great Depression, Fed chief Ben Strong’s deal with the Bank of England’s Montague Norman to inflate in the 1920s in order to help England and how this created the stock market bubble (and others) in the 20s, some of the ways that the near-totalitarian New Deal interventions of Wilsonian Republican Herbert Hoover and Wilsonian Democrat Franklin Roosevelt compounded and prolonged the depression, the myth that World War II ended the Great Depression, the Korean War and switch from World War to Cold War, the state’s scare tactics to strong-arm government growth, chaotic interventionism in the market and the status of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. [...]

]]> By: Troy http://antiwar.com/radio/2008/08/21/robert-higgs/comment-page-1/#comment-2360 Troy Wed, 27 Aug 2008 05:14:40 +0000 http://antiwar.com/radio/?p=696#comment-2360 What we have now, or arguably had depending on what you define as fully communist, is a moderate system. There aren't departments that dictate directly how many employees every business will have for example. The problem is that such a system allows those who have power and influence to affect the system so that they can maintain and expand their own power and eliminate competition. What we have now, or arguably had depending on what you define as fully communist, is a moderate system. There aren’t departments that dictate directly how many employees every business will have for example. The problem is that such a system allows those who have power and influence to affect the system so that they can maintain and expand their own power and eliminate competition.

]]> By: Tired http://antiwar.com/radio/2008/08/21/robert-higgs/comment-page-1/#comment-2359 Tired Wed, 27 Aug 2008 05:05:03 +0000 http://antiwar.com/radio/?p=696#comment-2359 But I will grant your that the current immigration system is rigged so that the power elite can get the poorest of the poor foreigners to do their work for them for the lowest cost possible. -Troy Well, this is what business teaches, what it doesnt teach is the end result of such practice, that is what happens when cheap labor no longer exists and wealth has been transferred to fewer and fewer hands until only a few businesses exist and everyone is working for poverty wages? The corporation would have no buyers and need no workers. The only solution is moderation. Libertarian ideology is simply unworkable. Communism is unworkable as is capitalism. Wars destroy what the people create. Unfortunately this scenario has become prevalent, that is, until resources to make weapons have expired. We must change our thinking and unify the earths people, and I dont mean communism. I mean moderation in all things and the realisation we are all humans and we are all Gods children But I will grant your that the current immigration system is rigged so that the power elite can get the poorest of the poor foreigners to do their work for them for the lowest cost possible. -Troy

Well, this is what business teaches, what it doesnt teach is the end result of such practice, that is what happens when cheap labor no longer exists and wealth has been transferred to fewer and fewer hands until only a few businesses exist and everyone is working for poverty wages? The corporation would have no buyers and need no workers.

The only solution is moderation. Libertarian ideology is simply unworkable. Communism is unworkable as is capitalism.

Wars destroy what the people create. Unfortunately this scenario has become prevalent, that is, until resources to make weapons have expired.

We must change our thinking and unify the earths people, and I dont mean communism. I mean moderation in all things and the realisation we are all humans and we are all Gods children

]]> By: Troy http://antiwar.com/radio/2008/08/21/robert-higgs/comment-page-1/#comment-2358 Troy Wed, 27 Aug 2008 04:50:45 +0000 http://antiwar.com/radio/?p=696#comment-2358 Sheldon Richman has a good article about this issue. http://www.fff.org/comment/com0705j.asp Sheldon Richman has a good article about this issue.
http://www.fff.org/comment/com0705j.asp

]]> By: Troy http://antiwar.com/radio/2008/08/21/robert-higgs/comment-page-1/#comment-2357 Troy Wed, 27 Aug 2008 04:25:26 +0000 http://antiwar.com/radio/?p=696#comment-2357 The main problem with your analysis of immigration is that you see the immigrants as a net drain on the economy. While the welfare state allows for immigrants to be on the government dole, that doesn't mean that they're only Welfare Queens living off the rest of us. It's similar to the problem with protectionism, you keep the wages artificially high, lower productivity and decrease your competitiveness in the global economy. Immigrants don't just take jobs and valuable space, they (like other gainfully-employed members of society) produce goods and services through their labor and in turn increase demand for goods and services produced by others. In short, immigration is helpful for the economy. But I will grant your that the current immigration system is rigged so that the power elite can get the poorest of the poor foreigners to do their work for them for the lowest cost possible. However that's just another part of this authoritarian-corporate system in which we live that distorts economic conditions and everything else that it can to maintain its own power. As for the "pornographic fantasies" that I'm apparently lost in, they haven't affected me to the point that I can't have this discussion with you. I could make some jibe about what I think your home life is like, but I really don't want to know and it's none of my business. About the "libertarian ideology turns us all into isolated individuals with no connection to each other except when it comes to the satisfaction of various appetites" point, maybe libertarians could uphold some greater meaning for us to follow like "nation greatness". Or even better, restrict people in whom they can associate with to avoid unwanted interactions that would disrupt the societal order, like those useful old "Jim Crow" laws. The main problem with your analysis of immigration is that you see the immigrants as a net drain on the economy. While the welfare state allows for immigrants to be on the government dole, that doesn’t mean that they’re only Welfare Queens living off the rest of us. It’s similar to the problem with protectionism, you keep the wages artificially high, lower productivity and decrease your competitiveness in the global economy. Immigrants don’t just take jobs and valuable space, they (like other gainfully-employed members of society) produce goods and services through their labor and in turn increase demand for goods and services produced by others. In short, immigration is helpful for the economy.
But I will grant your that the current immigration system is rigged so that the power elite can get the poorest of the poor foreigners to do their work for them for the lowest cost possible. However that’s just another part of this authoritarian-corporate system in which we live that distorts economic conditions and everything else that it can to maintain its own power. As for the “pornographic fantasies” that I’m apparently lost in, they haven’t affected me to the point that I can’t have this discussion with you. I could make some jibe about what I think your home life is like, but I really don’t want to know and it’s none of my business.
About the “libertarian ideology turns us all into isolated individuals with no connection to each other except when it comes to the satisfaction of various appetites” point, maybe libertarians could uphold some greater meaning for us to follow like “nation greatness”. Or even better, restrict people in whom they can associate with to avoid unwanted interactions that would disrupt the societal order, like those useful old “Jim Crow” laws.

]]> By: the legendary Bill http://antiwar.com/radio/2008/08/21/robert-higgs/comment-page-1/#comment-2351 the legendary Bill Tue, 26 Aug 2008 23:44:57 +0000 http://antiwar.com/radio/?p=696#comment-2351 Tell me Troy, does porno do anyone any good? Really? Tell me how it's made you a better husband..Not a husband yet? Perhaps because you're too lost in pornographic fantasies ( facilitated by the internet ).. A couple of yrs ago Chuck Hagel and a democrat whose name escapes me ( Kennedy? ) passed an immigration bill increasing legal immigration to 2 million a yr...sound beneficial to you? On top of the skilled H1-b's which for the most part aren't needed ( unless you resent employees with enough bargaining power to command wages high enough to house and feed themselves )...and on top of the million or so illegal immigrants...So, that doesn't sound like a problem to you? Anyone who thinks it is( and is concerned about the resulting sprawl, traffic congestion, packed classrooms and over-stressed hospitals, depressed wages for the less skilled, etc ) is just an angry xenophobe, huh? Yeah, this is the problem w/libertarian ideologues.. Tell me Troy, does porno do anyone any good? Really? Tell me how it’s made you a better husband..Not a husband yet? Perhaps because you’re too lost in pornographic fantasies ( facilitated by the internet )..
A couple of yrs ago Chuck Hagel and a democrat whose name escapes me ( Kennedy? ) passed an immigration bill increasing legal immigration to 2 million a yr…sound beneficial to you? On top of the skilled H1-b’s which for the most part aren’t needed ( unless you resent employees with enough bargaining power to command wages high enough to house and feed themselves )…and on top of the million or so illegal immigrants…So, that doesn’t sound like a problem to you? Anyone who thinks it is( and is concerned about the resulting sprawl, traffic congestion, packed classrooms and over-stressed hospitals, depressed wages for the less skilled, etc ) is just an angry xenophobe, huh?
Yeah, this is the problem w/libertarian ideologues..

]]> By: Lawrence http://antiwar.com/radio/2008/08/21/robert-higgs/comment-page-1/#comment-2348 Lawrence Tue, 26 Aug 2008 17:37:17 +0000 http://antiwar.com/radio/?p=696#comment-2348 By observing the trail of statements made in this blog (by Alex and the embarrassingly self-defined LegendaryBill), I become confirmed in my thesis that a defense of the state is often based on powerful psychological needs. Note that Anthony has politely corrected a series of erroneous “facts” and preconceptions made by both parties. Instead of going back to their rooms to ruminate on the consequential outward-rippling flow of reconstructions made necessary by these corrections, Bill/Alex merely proceed to a new set of errors and misperceptions—never once acknowledging that they have lost every preceding argument and that they should indeed go back and do some homework and self-criticism. In a healthy and active thinking process, when fundamental contradictions are pointed out, one must go back and “level” (in the sense of destroying) the superstructure built upon the errors and misperceptions and then begin anew. Nonetheless, despite the holes in the foundation uncovered by the proponents of libertarianism, there is no evidence that statists are capable of reflecting upon the changed status quo or of the need to reconstruct the superstructure as a necessary result. This appears to be a clear marker of the inability to think—something along the lines identified by Hannah Arendt when she explained her subtitle to “Eichmann in Jerusalem” (the phrase ‘the banality of evil’). With each new series of comfort-food-statements about the state made by its defenders (these provide a psychological refuge because we are trained from an early age to recognize “authority”—if for no other reason than we were all children in a world of adults at one time), it becomes clear that no progress is being made. Even worse, there is an endless supply of these errors upon which to draw. As Mencken said about “democratic man”: “…though he quickly reaches the limit of his capacity for taking in actual knowledge, remains capable for a long time thereafter of absorbing delusions. What is true daunts him, but what is not true finds lodgment in his cranium with so little resistance that there is only a trifling emission of heat.” http://www.strike-the-root.com/82/ludlow/ludlow2.html If they are honest in their pursuit of truth, the statists really should consider the following: Most of us were not born libertarians. We, like them, were inculcated in statism and learned to accept it as children. At some point as adults, the contradictions between reality and our programming became clear, and this opened us to alternatives. Consequently, we began exploring—often in a hit-and-miss fashion—ideas of liberty. Along the way, we constantly revised our world-outlook based upon new information. Nonetheless, one thing is clear: it was a long process. One cannot reconstruct a political philosophy in a blog-length argument. If this were possible, I would be alarmed. Anything that claims to solve all things in a sound-bite cannot elucidate very much. Do the statists really expect Anthony Gregory or anyone else to re-type into this blog several books worth of learning for their singular and narcissistic pleasure? No. If you are serious about learning, the erroneous one-shot remarks and come-back errors cannot be taken seriously. I encourage Alex/Bill to take a step outside of their comfort zones and read something about libertarianism from someone who really understands it. There is no better communicator than Murray Rothbard. His books, “For a New Liberty” and “Ethics of Liberty” are the cornerstones of the movement—and I think I can make that statement with some certainty. Then move onto something like “Market for Liberty” by Morris and Linda Tannehill to see these ideas in action. What is important about Rothbard (and Hoppe has a sequel to this in his books) is his recognition of the nonaggression axiom and the self-ownership concept. These short statements are an exception—as all axioms are—of my previous warning about philosophies that claim to live in a nutshell. A short axiom tells a lot, and the refusal of Alex/Bill to eschew coercion completely undoes them as serious proponents of ideas. Any proponent of the initiation of force necessarily undercuts their standing as an “honest dealer.” It is a confession of impotence, and it—in effect—broadcasts that they are willing to slaughter anyone who does not willingly go along with them. Hans Hermann Hoppe even goes so far as to say that the mere act of asserting anything is an acknowledgement of the self-ownership axiom. The point is, Alex and Bill (legend though he may be in his own mind) are not arguing in any philosophical way and may, in fact, be incapable of it as Hannah suggested to us about statists. I encourage both of them to go back, lick their wounds, and admit defeat. It is a profoundly liberating experience to admit an error and begin to see the world in a new way. By holding onto their errors in desperation (out of a psychological need to exculpate what they have identified with far too closely), they are merely burying themselves and wasting their valuable life energy. I assure you that your world will not crumble if you learn something new. Learning can be scary, but it is the only way to really grow. By observing the trail of statements made in this blog (by Alex and the embarrassingly self-defined LegendaryBill), I become confirmed in my thesis that a defense of the state is often based on powerful psychological needs. Note that Anthony has politely corrected a series of erroneous “facts” and preconceptions made by both parties. Instead of going back to their rooms to ruminate on the consequential outward-rippling flow of reconstructions made necessary by these corrections, Bill/Alex merely proceed to a new set of errors and misperceptions—never once acknowledging that they have lost every preceding argument and that they should indeed go back and do some homework and self-criticism. In a healthy and active thinking process, when fundamental contradictions are pointed out, one must go back and “level” (in the sense of destroying) the superstructure built upon the errors and misperceptions and then begin anew. Nonetheless, despite the holes in the foundation uncovered by the proponents of libertarianism, there is no evidence that statists are capable of reflecting upon the changed status quo or of the need to reconstruct the superstructure as a necessary result. This appears to be a clear marker of the inability to think—something along the lines identified by Hannah Arendt when she explained her subtitle to “Eichmann in Jerusalem” (the phrase ‘the banality of evil’). With each new series of comfort-food-statements about the state made by its defenders (these provide a psychological refuge because we are trained from an early age to recognize “authority”—if for no other reason than we were all children in a world of adults at one time), it becomes clear that no progress is being made. Even worse, there is an endless supply of these errors upon which to draw. As Mencken said about “democratic man”: “…though he quickly reaches the limit of his capacity for taking in actual knowledge, remains capable for a long time thereafter of absorbing delusions. What is true daunts him, but what is not true finds lodgment in his cranium with so little resistance that there is only a trifling emission of heat.”
http://www.strike-the-root.com/82/ludlow/ludlow2.html
If they are honest in their pursuit of truth, the statists really should consider the following: Most of us were not born libertarians. We, like them, were inculcated in statism and learned to accept it as children. At some point as adults, the contradictions between reality and our programming became clear, and this opened us to alternatives. Consequently, we began exploring—often in a hit-and-miss fashion—ideas of liberty. Along the way, we constantly revised our world-outlook based upon new information. Nonetheless, one thing is clear: it was a long process. One cannot reconstruct a political philosophy in a blog-length argument. If this were possible, I would be alarmed. Anything that claims to solve all things in a sound-bite cannot elucidate very much. Do the statists really expect Anthony Gregory or anyone else to re-type into this blog several books worth of learning for their singular and narcissistic pleasure? No. If you are serious about learning, the erroneous one-shot remarks and come-back errors cannot be taken seriously. I encourage Alex/Bill to take a step outside of their comfort zones and read something about libertarianism from someone who really understands it. There is no better communicator than Murray Rothbard. His books, “For a New Liberty” and “Ethics of Liberty” are the cornerstones of the movement—and I think I can make that statement with some certainty. Then move onto something like “Market for Liberty” by Morris and Linda Tannehill to see these ideas in action. What is important about Rothbard (and Hoppe has a sequel to this in his books) is his recognition of the nonaggression axiom and the self-ownership concept. These short statements are an exception—as all axioms are—of my previous warning about philosophies that claim to live in a nutshell. A short axiom tells a lot, and the refusal of Alex/Bill to eschew coercion completely undoes them as serious proponents of ideas. Any proponent of the initiation of force necessarily undercuts their standing as an “honest dealer.” It is a confession of impotence, and it—in effect—broadcasts that they are willing to slaughter anyone who does not willingly go along with them. Hans Hermann Hoppe even goes so far as to say that the mere act of asserting anything is an acknowledgement of the self-ownership axiom. The point is, Alex and Bill (legend though he may be in his own mind) are not arguing in any philosophical way and may, in fact, be incapable of it as Hannah suggested to us about statists. I encourage both of them to go back, lick their wounds, and admit defeat. It is a profoundly liberating experience to admit an error and begin to see the world in a new way. By holding onto their errors in desperation (out of a psychological need to exculpate what they have identified with far too closely), they are merely burying themselves and wasting their valuable life energy. I assure you that your world will not crumble if you learn something new. Learning can be scary, but it is the only way to really grow.

]]> By: Jet http://antiwar.com/radio/2008/08/21/robert-higgs/comment-page-1/#comment-2346 Jet Tue, 26 Aug 2008 15:48:17 +0000 http://antiwar.com/radio/?p=696#comment-2346 Its human nature. Government or not we will always have those who seek to gain wealth, power or control thru whatever means possible. Social Darwinists. Its human nature.

Government or not we will always have those who seek to gain wealth, power or control thru whatever means possible.

Social Darwinists.

]]> By: the legendary Bill http://antiwar.com/radio/2008/08/21/robert-higgs/comment-page-1/#comment-2337 the legendary Bill Tue, 26 Aug 2008 01:33:35 +0000 http://antiwar.com/radio/?p=696#comment-2337 And don't get me started on trade policy...Libertarians see no reason to try to maintain a manufacturing base...In fact nations aren't really nations by their definition...just a collection of workers and consumers who happen to live in the same place... And don’t get me started on trade policy…Libertarians see no reason to try to maintain a manufacturing base…In fact nations aren’t really nations by their definition…just a collection of workers and consumers who happen to live in the same place…

]]> By: Anthony Gregory http://antiwar.com/radio/2008/08/21/robert-higgs/comment-page-1/#comment-2332 Anthony Gregory Mon, 25 Aug 2008 22:18:05 +0000 http://antiwar.com/radio/?p=696#comment-2332 Monopoly is a creature of the state. Monopoly is a creature of the state.

]]>