No one sanctions like America. Two or three dozen countries being destabilized with many thousands dying from lack of food, medicine and commerce makes no dent in Uncle Sam’s conscience.
But there is an increasingly self-destructive downside to U.S. sanctions besides the fact they simply don’t work to achieve US foreign policy goals while getting foreign innocents killed.
All those US sanctions now on steroids against Russia over Ukraine war are working to disincentive many important countries from paying for trade, especially energy resources, in the good ‘ol dollar. This will likely cause the current the 60% of world’s reserves held in dollars to begin heading south.
China, fearing US world dominance, has joined into alliance with Russia, buying their oil with Chinese yuan. India is considering doing same with rupees. Fair weather ally Saudi Arabia is also dumping the dollar in trade with China. That’s only 3 countries but over 35% of world population.
How will that effect the US economy? Let us count the ways.
- Costlier imports
- Higher government borrowing costs
- Higher personal borrowing costs
- Rising deficits
- Eventual reduction of essential services damaging the fragile US social safety net
- The US printing press of inflationary dollars goes silent
- Only military spending will be spared, rising endlessly toward an annual trillion dollars
By all means, let’s continue the upward expansion of sanctions against friend and foe alike. Then watch US world dominance based on our almighty dollar and almighty military, sink into the Davy Jones Locker of failed empires.
Walt Zlotow became involved in antiwar activities upon entering University of Chicago in 1963. He is current president of the West Suburban Peace Coalition based in the Chicago western suburbs. He blogs daily on antiwar and other issues at www.heartlandprogressive.blogspot.com.
Ron Paul was right. At least some of us listened.
Yes, by and large right on U.S. foreign policy, but horribly wrong on his economic theories.
Name one thing. We’ll start there.
He’s a huge proponent of Austrian economics, correct?
Yes, he’s a “huge proponent” of sound economics.
I hate to use LOL, but I think it’s appropriate here.
Pray tell, how can you possibly describe Austrian economics as “sound”?
By reading Austrian economics texts, comparing them to reality, and looking up the definition of the word “sound” in any dictionary.
Again, that is just hilarious.
And you never saw the enormous flaw in your arguement?
Austrian economics has never been tested in reality itself!
Never been tried, never even had theoretical models put forward by it’s proponents.
My god, proponents of Austrian economics can’t even describe Praxeology in a practical sense, which is the core principle of Austrian economics.
Economics isn’t something you “try.”
Economics is an attempt to describe reality.
And observed reality corresponds closely with the descriptions of Austrian economics — particularly value subjectivism and, as Mises described, the calculation problem vis a vis central planning.
Again, more ”Libertarian” sophistry and semantics.
Like your previous comment about the use of the word ”sound.”
We’re not quibbling about that, we are disagreeing about how it applies to Austrian economics.
And here you are again, off tangent about the meaning of ”try,” and how it relates to our discussion.
Your answers are grossly simplistic and subjective.
That seems to be the template with you libertarians, a lot of incoherent and inane claptrap, and nothing practical, or nothing realistic.
”And observed reality corresponds closely with the descriptions of Austrian economics –”
Examples?
“…particularly value subjectivism and, as Mises described, the calculation problem vis a vis central planning.”
Again, examples?
Value subjectivism is self-evident — people value things differently according their self-perceived wants and needs, not according to weird prescribed formulas like a labor theory of value.
As for the calculation problem, the examples would include every government attempt to decide what should or should not be produced, and in what amounts, ever. One example would be Donald Trump’s imposition of war communism under the Defense Production Act to seize factories for production of ventilators (before the centrally planned production even got started, Ye Aulde Invisible Hand had responded to the sudden demand with increase production of existing models, researcher design of expedient alternatives, etc.).
I mentioned non-sequiturs, and off-topic tangents, and you just DoubleDown…
But this time, you’ve added some rather bizarre hypotheticals.
“…Ye Aulde Invisible hand…”
Huh???
Let’s get back to your Central quote.
“Economics is an attempt to describe reality.”
So what type of reality would Austrian economics describe?
And of course, give me practical answers.
No more attempts to divert this conversation away by your use of nonsensical sophistry.
I gave you the facts. Take it or leave it. Whether you choose to wallow in ignorance or educate yourself makes no difference whatsoever to me.
“I gave you the facts.”
Hilarious!
So typical of the proponents of Austrian economics, when you ask them to articulate even the most basic concept of their much cherished economic model, they completely fall apart, and then have the audacity (sheer ignorance actually) to blame the questioner for not understanding their laughable simplistic non-sequiturs and sophistry.
“Economics is an attempt to describe reality.”
Again, that’s your quote, and you cannot justify it, when applied to your much-loved Austrian economic model
Laughable!
I notice you haven’t offered a counter to any aspect of Austrian economics that I’ve mentioned, or given any hint as to what your own preferred economic theory is.
I don’t blame you for not understanding Austrian economics. After all, half the population is of below median intelligence, and a good percentage of the rest acts like it. Which of those two groups you’re in, I don’t really care to guess.
“I notice you haven’t offered a counter to any aspect of Austrian economics that I’ve mentioned, or given any hint as to what your own preferred economic theory is.”
I’m quite happy to.
But you haven’t “offered” any “aspect” from your side of the arguement whatsoever.
Just a lot of esoteric gibberish.
“I don’t blame you for not understanding Austrian economics. After all, half the population is of below median intelligence, and a good percentage of the rest acts like it. Which of those two groups you’re in, I don’t really care to guess.”
Ha ha ha… so typical of you libertarians, when it’s quite clear that you have failed to prosecute your arguement, you try and turn it around, and blame the questioner for not understanding your gibberish.
But wait…
“I don’t blame you for not understanding Austrian economics.”
You have clearly demonstrated that you don’t even understand for your own cherished economic model.
So that would put you in a separate category, someone who is far below the median intelligence.
But hey, you’re a “libertarian,” so don’t take it to harshly.
I offered two specific Austrian insights — value subjectivism (as opposed to e.g. labor theories of value) and the calculation problem with respect central economic planning — as examples in response to your question.
Tellingly, you didn’t even attempt to argue against either of those elements of Austrian economics, or for that matter to offer to examples of competing theories that you believe better explain observable reality.
There’s certainly some gibberish in this conversation, and precisely none of it is coming from me.
I’ll just repeat, you offered up nothing, except a few lines of esoteric gibberish and off topic nonsense.
“Economics is an attempt to describe reality.”
Again, your quote, and you still haven’t justified it, in regards to making your arguement for Austrian economics.
Put simply, you cannot even provide the simplest of practical examples, instead, obfuscation and disingenuous claptrap is all you offer up.
“Tellingly, you didn’t even attempt to argue against either of those elements of Austrian economics, or for that matter to offer to examples of competing theories that you believe better explain observable reality.”
As I keep repeating, you first.
Remember, you approach me, not the other way around.
I’ll keep waiting…
“There’s certainly some gibberish in this conversation, and precisely none of it is coming from me.”
So typical of you libertarians, you are so bereft of a cogent arguement, so instead you play the man and not the ball.
I didn’t “approach” you. You came here and said something dumb. I just pointed out that it was dumb. At which point you went all “if you thought that was dumb, I’ve got more.”
Which is fine. If you’ve got nothing to say, fake it ’til you make it, I guess.
My god, you tagged my comment, that’s what I meant by you approached me.
So who’s the dummy here?
Can we get back to the conversation, or have you completely failed now in your arguement?
Rhetorical question I guess.
You are just following the same template as all the other libertarians I’ve tried to have discussions with.
You’re just impossibly incompetent to prosecute your own side of the arguement, so you take the course of obfuscation and non-sequiturs, I think in a desperate bid to stay relevant in the conversation (which is ironic, because you use irrelevant nonsense) and when that obviously fails, you just descend into name-calling.
You aren’t “trying to have a discussion,” and there is no “argument” here for me to have a “side of.”
Words mean things.
What “quote” are you fantasizing that I “attributed” to you?
True to form, like all libertarians, you have successfully taken this topic completely off course.
And of course, the reason is obvious .
You have failed spectacular in supporting your side of the argument.
So instead, you embarrass yourself with your complete failure to understand grade 6 english.
Can we get back to the discussion now, or have you completely capitulated?
There is no “argument” for me to have a “side” of here.
An argument consists of attempting to support or disprove assertions.
You asking me for examples of Austrian economics concepts might have made interesting fodder for an argument, and I held up my end of the idea by providing them.
But pretending you didn’t get those examples because it’s easier to just babble like a moron and fantasize that other people are laughing with you not at you is not argument.
Let me know if you decide to get, or are even capable of getting, serious.
Oh look, you’re doubling down. And dumbing down.
“But pretending you didn’t get those examples because it’s easier to just babble like a moron and fantasize that other people are laughing with you not at you is not argument.”
Pot-Kettle.
You seem to be struggling with the word practical, along with a few other words.
Here, let me help you…
practical
/ˈpraktɪk(ə)l/
adjective
1.
Of or concerned with the actual doing or use of something rather than with theory and ideas.
Now give me some practical examples as to why you think Austrian economics is “sound.”
Austrian economics is “sound” insofar as its theory of value (subjectivism) correctly describes what value is and how it arises.
Austrian economics is “sound” insofar as its description of the “calculation problem” in central planning correctly explains why command economies are less capable of satisfying consumer demand than market economies.
Economics is “the social science that studies the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services.” That is, it is an attempt to describe reality.
Austrian economics describes reality more accurately than competing schools of economics.
In terms of practicality, sound understanding of reality is better than unsound understanding of reality when it comes to achieving the results you want rather than the results you don’t want.
You are still Clueless, and you are still proving me correct, in regards to my accusations of your deliberate avoidance for you to make a rational arguement and mature arguement in case of Austrian economics.
Again, where is your practical examples?
Economics is such a broad encompassing discipline.
Let’s start with the medical and healthcare system.
How would Austrian economics affect that part of the economy?
“How would Austrian economics affect that part of the economy?”
Economics doesn’t “affect” things. It attempts to accurately describe things.
“Economics doesn’t “affect” things.”
Haha haha haha…
“It attempts to accurately describe things.”
Ok Mr word salad, how does Austrian economics describe the medical industry?
”Austrian economics is “sound” insofar as its description of the “calculation problem” in central planning correctly explains why command economies are less capable of satisfying consumer demand than market economies.”
And yet, you cannot provide one example of that nonsense.
Maybe because that’s what it just is, nonsense.
“And yet, you cannot provide one example of that nonsense.”
You just want one? OK — East Germany’s command economy versus West Germany’s market economy in the post-WW2 era.
“You just want one? OK — East Germany’s command economy versus West Germany’s market economy in the post-WW2 era.”
Wrong, because Austrian economics wasn’t applied to that situation.
Anyway, you’ve just provided a headline, with no content.
Fail and fail.
Do you have any other examples from the post-war era?
That is relevant to this discussion?
All economics is “applied” to every situation … by the economists studying that situation.
That’s what economics is — the study of, and creation of theories concerning — human activity.
You seem to be confusing things like fiscal policy, monetary policy, etc. for “economics.”
Your incoherent word salad continues…
“That’s what economics is — the study of, and creation of theories concerning — human activity.”
Yet, you cannot provide one practical example, in regards to Austrian economics, which you described earlier as “sound.”
“You seem to be confusing things like fiscal policy, monetary policy, etc. for “economics.”
Not at all, I’m not asking or discussing, even in a remote way, the difference between fiscal policy and monetary policy.
I’m asking you about the influence of Austrian economics on the medical industry, which you have failed to do so far.
You are spectacular foolish.
Your desperate attempt to squirm and deflect this arguement, is both pathetic and amusing at the same time.
When and if you MAKE an argument, I might or might not “deflect” it. I won’t squirm, though.
It might start with familiarizing yourself with what economics is, so that you can ask a question that’s actually about it, instead of just fantasizing that it’s something else.
”When and if you MAKE an argument, I might or might not “deflect” it. I won’t squirm, though.”
Ha ha ha…
This is amusing, highly amusing… having a discussion with a “Libertarian” who loves his Austrian economics, but fails spectacularly when asked to say a positive word about it.
Pure pantomime.
”It might start with familiarizing yourself with what economics is, so that you can ask a question that’s actually about it, instead of just fantasizing that it’s something else.”
My god, you need to take your own advice!
By the way, I found an Austrian economist who wrote a book about the healthcare system.
Maybe you should read it, but then again, it got some terrible reviews.
I haven’t read any long-form Austrian works on “the healthcare system” recently (in fact, I seldom read straight economics stuff at all — I think the last time was Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the 21st Century), but my guess is that an Austrian economist writing on “the healthcare system” would likely focus on the effects of state licensing monopolies, state socialization/subsidy programs (such as, in the US, Medicare and Medicaid), etc. on limiting supply and raising prices.
But you continue to miss the point: “Economics” as such is descriptive, not prescriptive.
Any branch of economics will assert “if x, then y” to describe particular things happening.
People who a regard that school’s claims as correct may then prescribe x as a way to getting y, or -x as a way of avoiding y, but that’s not economics, it’s policy.
“…in fact, I seldom read straight economics stuff at all…”
Well there’s a surprising revelation, maybe not surprising.
That’s probably why you can’t answer simple questions, even in defence of your own so-called “sound” economic theories.
No, the book got criticise, because it was just more inane libertarian claptrap.
Which book got criticized because it was just more inane libertarian claptrap?
The reason I seldom read straight economics stuff at all is that I read the classics a long time ago, and after a few years working for the Henry Hazlitt Foundation, I was worn out with it being all economics all the time.
I answered your simple questions. You just didn’t like the answers, because you either don’t understand what “economics” is, or because you’re some kind of weird troll who doesn’t understand that when you’ve dug a hole for yourself, the first step to getting out is to stop digging.
“I answered your simple questions. You just didn’t like the answers, because you either don’t understand what “economics” is, or because you’re some kind of weird troll who doesn’t understand that when you’ve dug a hole for yourself, the first step to getting out is to stop digging.”
Really, you’re just a dishonest scoundrel.
Firstly, you didn’t answer any of my questions, you offered up a couple of vaguely esoteric pieces of nonsense, when I asked you for some simple practical answers.
And secondly, people can draw their own conclusions. People can read the thread of our conversation, and will work out who is the troll in this conversation.
By the way, speaking of holes (which is inaccurate again) you have created a large crater for yourself.
“Which book got criticized because it was just more inane libertarian claptrap?”
Really, you don’t know?
You claim to be an expert, and claim Austrian economics is such a “sound” economic model.
Have a look, because if I can find it, I’m sure a so-called expert like yourself can find it.
It’s the only book written by an Austrian Economist, criticising the so-called socialised healthcare system in the United States.
“In my imagination, you claim to be an expert”
Fixed, no charge. The last time I would have called myself an expert on anything would have been nearly 30 years ago, and that would have been on running the fire direction center of an 81mm mortar platoon.
I would be genuinely surprised if only one Austrian economist has written a book about the so-called socialized healthcare system in the United States. And I haven’t kept track of books by Austrian school economists since the early 2000s.
Again, just proving what I said earlier. You are completely going off course, and becoming unhinged.
Clearly, you have completely failed at defending your much loved economic model.
So instead, to create the perception that somehow you’re still relevant in this discussion, now you just dribble out any old nonsense.
81 mortar platoon?
What is that got to do with our discussion?
You pretended that I claimed to be an expert (in, presumably, economics). I didn’t. You just made that up entirely out of your vivid imagination. The reference to the 81mm mortar platoon simply reflects that last time I might actually have claimed what you falsely claimed I claimed.
I don’t “love” Austrian school economics any more than I “love” quantum mechanics theory. I just notice that Austrian school economics and quantum mechanics explain reality better than, say, Modern Monetary Theory or Newtonian physics.
Based on your earlier comments, it was easy to presume that you thought you knew everything about Austrian economics, but now reading your latest reply, you clearly don’t.
Perhaps you should have admitted this earlier.
Like all so-called libertarians, you don’t have a grasp on reality, and in your case, “sound” economic values.
“I just notice that Austrian school economics and quantum mechanics explain reality better than, say, Modern Monetary Theory or Newtonian physics.”
😆😅🤣
So, in summary, you assumed something I didn’t say, and now you’re blaming me for your incorrect assumption.
No, I’m blaming you for your flip-flopping and incoherent nonsense, which is difficult to grasp.
As I keep repeating, most likely a ploy by you, just to stay relevant in this discussion (In your little mind only) even as you make irrelevant and incoherent comments.
And the proof is right here, in your previous comment.
It is in no way a defence or promotion of your Austrian economic model as being “sound.”
Put simply, you have abandoned your defence of Austrian economics entirely.
You have failed spectacularly.
Well, I certainly can’t dispute your expertise in the area of spectacular failure.
I don’t have to worry about “staying relevant.” Moderating comments here is my job, so I’m “relevant” any time I choose to be. Noticing your little dig and assisting you in making yourself look stupid in public is just a leisure time pursuit.
Once again, you’re just proving my point.
You are completely bereft of any intelligent debate, so like all libertarians, you attack the person and not the subject matter… Good for you.
Debate consists of:
1) A resolution to be argued for and against;
2) People arguing for and against it.
Me referring to Austrian economics as “sound” COULD be turned into a resolution for debate, if you’d like.
In which case you debating that resolution would involve you e.g. stating one of its tenets and attempting to prove that tenet false. Or, if you prefer, actually responding to the answers I offered to your question instead of pretending I didn’t answer your question.
You doing a not very good job of trolling (trolls aren’t supposed to be boring) isn’t “debate.”
“Me referring to Austrian economics as “sound” COULD be turned into a resolution for debate, if you’d like.”
You turned it into a discussion about quantum physics.
So what does that say about your comment?
A flip-flopping hypocrite.
Again, you don’t want to debate Austrian economics.
Why? Because you fail spectacularly, so you’re desperately trying to drag the conversation completely off course.
“You doing a not very good job of trolling (trolls aren’t supposed to be boring) isn’t “debate.”
Again, I’m not the troll here, people will be able to read the thread of this discussion, and will decide who is the troll here.
Do you want to get back to the discussion of Austrian economics, or do you just want to make yourself look foolish once again?
Based on your inane comments earlier, I think it’s a rhetorical question.
So far, there’s no “discussion” of Austrian economics to go “back” to. You asked a question. I answered it. You pretended I didn’t.
If you’d like to discuss Austrian economics, we can. I don’t care a great deal whether we do or not. So far you’ve shown no desire to do so and every desire to avoid doing so at any cost. Well, any cost except shutting up, anyway.
“So far, there’s no “discussion” of Austrian economics to go “back” to. You asked a question. I answered it. You pretended I didn’t.”
No you didn’t, you gave a couple of obtuse answers that didn’t match the question.
So let’s try again, but this time with education.
What effects will Austrian economics have on the education system?
And a practical answer, no esoteric unhinged nonsense from you will be accepted.
“What effects will Austrian economics have on the education system?”
None whatsoever.
Really, how so?
Which part of “economics is descriptive, not prescriptive” do you not understand?
Any school of economics — Austrian, Keynesian, monetarist, public choice, various flavors of Marxist, etc. — attempts to describe reality.
Economic theory is not public policy.
Which part of Austrian economics don’t you understand? Rhetorical question, you don’t understand any of it, which just makes you look utterly foolish.
I understand quite a bit of Austrian economics — value subjectivism, calculation difficulties, business cycle theory, etc.
But you still seem to not get that economic theory is an attempt to describe what does happen, not a moral guide to what should be done.
For example, an Austrian school economist would likely posit that increased government control of healthcare would reduce the overall availability (that is, supply) of care and direct appropriate care to patients less efficiently than a market system would. That’s a description of reality as the economist perceives it.
Similarly, a Marxian economist would likely posit that having the state, on behalf of the working class, seize control of health care and centrally plan its supply and delivery, would result in an a distribution of health care to where it’s needed instead of to where profits direct it. That is also a description of reality as the economist perceives it.
What neither economist can tell us, as an economist, is whether we should have a market healthcare system or a socialized healthcare system. That’s not an economic question, it’s a political question. All an economist can do as an economist, is tell us what he predicts will happen based on the choices we make.
”I understand quite a bit of Austrian economics –”
You are a joke, seriously, you are just a laughable joke.
I think you’re unhinged.
You parade around this blog, like some ne’er-do-well sophist, claiming that Austrian economics is ”sound,” yet you cannot provide one example to support that claim.
Instead, you use childish non-sequiturs and Ad hominem, such as trying to take this conversation of course Eg; Quantum physics.
And you seemed to think that substituting incoherent prolix, as evidenced with your latest post, will suffice for an answer.
Hardly.
I’m sure you know about https://mises.org, they are a great resource for proponents of Austrian economics.
Yet you’re either too inept or too lazy, or both, to even look at their website for an answer.
Yes, I know about the Mises Institute. They still have some Austrians there, although in the main the site has been in thrall to a pseudo-Austrian Marxist (Hans-Hermann Hoppe) for a long time now.
I don’t have to look anywhere for “an answer” until and unless you decide to ask a meaningful question. Which is probably not going to happen since you insist on pretending that economics is something other than what it is.
“I don’t have to look anywhere for “an answer” until and unless you decide to ask a meaningful question.”
😆😅🤣
You need to look up the word meaningful, because clearly, you are Clueless.
“Which is probably not going to happen since you insist on pretending that economics is something other than what it is.”
Another pathetic and disingenuous attempt at deverting the conversation.
Then what is economics?
And keep your answer confined to Austrian economics, after all, you regard Austrian economics as “sound.”
Ha haha ha…
Funny, I was discussing (well if one can call it that with them) the other day with an Objectivist who claims “Hoppe is a Kantian philosopher who develops values-free ethics simply to preserve the Kantian imprimatur on Austrian economics.” and “Until his 30s when he became a Rothbardian, Hoppe was an ardent Kantian-Marxist. He then became a Kantian-Austrian.” (Kant being, for Objectivists “the most evil philosopher of all times”)
https://mises.org/wire/economic-calculation#comment-5822790477
https://mises.org/wire/it-wasnt-capitalism-mises-explains-nazi-economics#comment-5828457253
But I think he was focusing on philosphy, not economics. Which publications of Hoppe in the field of economics would you consider Marxist?
https://mises.org/profile/hans-hermann-hoppe
His latest from what I can see “The Misesian Case against Keynes”
https://mises.org/library/misesian-case-against-keynes
Seems pretty Austrian to me…
“Which publications of Hoppe in the field of economics would you consider Marxist?”
The most obvious one would be the one in which he openly proclaims that he’s a Marxist: The Economics and Ethics of Private Property:
“I will do the following in this chapter: First, I will present a series of theses that constitute the hard-core of the Marxist theory of history. I claim that all of them are essentially correct. “
Ok, but he’s criticizing Marxism elsewhere in the same book:
“The descriptive part of Marxist analyses is generally valuable. In unearthing the
close personal and financial links between state and business, they usually paint
a much more realistic picture of the present economic order than do the mostly
starry-eyed “bourgeois economists.” Analytically, however, they get almost
everything wrong and turn the truth upside down.
The traditional, correct pre-Marxist view on exploitation was that of radical
laissez-faire liberalism as espoused by, for instance, Charles Comte and Charles
Dunoyer. According to them, antagonistic interests do not exist between capitalists as owners of factors of production and laborers, but between, on the one
hand, the producers in society, i.e., homesteaders, producers and contractors,
including businessmen as well as workers, and on the other hand, those who
acquire wealth nonproductively and/or noncontractually, i.e., the state and stateprivileged groups, such as feudal landlords. This distinction was first confused by
Saint-Simon, who had at some time been influenced by Comte and Dunoyer,
and who classified market businessmen along with feudal lords and other stateprivileged groups as exploiters. Marx took up this confusion from Saint-Simon
and compounded it by making only capitalists exploiters and all workers exploited, justifying this view through a Ricardian labor theory of value and his theory
of surplus value.
What is wrong with Marx’s theory of exploitation, then, is that he
does not understand the phenomenon of time preference as a universal category of human action.7 That the laborer does not receive
his “full worth” has nothing to do with exploitation but merely
reflects the fact that it is impossible for man to exchange future goods
against present ones except at a discount.
Under a system of socialized production, quite contrary to Marx’s
proclamations, the development of productive forces would not
reach new heights but would instead sink dramatically.”
Many Marxists criticize various aspects of Marxism. Hoppe is a Frankfurt-trained Marxist economist who found himself a niche outside Marxism proper. He’s not the only scholar who comes from a Marxist orientation to radically different conclusions. My friend Dr. Chris Matthew Sciabarra was trained/mentored as a Marxist academic but has written extensively on Rand, Rothbard, and Hayek from a dialectical viewpoint.
Sure, but his criticism of Marxism is Austrian. his conclusions on economics are Austrian. I think my original question still stands:
“Which publications of Hoppe in the field of economics would you consider Marxist?”
or more specifically, on which particular points of economic theory would you say he chooses the marxist view and/or criticizes/rejects the Austrian one? which of his specific views would you consider “pseudo-Austrian”?
It’s been a long time since I’ve read Hoppe, but his “physical removal” prescription for “maintaining a libertarian order” (Democracy: The God That Failed) is pretty much standard Marxist class warfare doctrine (first of the Marxist-Leninist school that gave rise to the Cheka, later put on steroids by Stalin with e.g. the liquidation of the kulaks).
Ah yes. I read it a long time ago, too. Overrated book, in my opinion.
Here’s the passage in question:
https://books.google.com/books?id=qARC56X5vxcC&pg=PA216e
I don’t quite agree, but the fact remains that in general Hoppe’s advocating for anarcho-capitalism (or, as a second-best, micro-states in competition, as in his latest interview/article on mises.org). As to the kind of policies those minarchist micro-states/anarchist gated communities would actually enact, he has his opinion, and he’s free to found or join such a community. He’s not, however, advocating violence against any other communities (say a gay one, or a communist commune, or a kibbutz, moshav, etc), to the best of my knowledge. So his own preference in this regard is not particularly relevant to the kind of system he’s actually advocating (he is wrong in mixing the two, to be sure, but it’s not such a big deal, *precisely due to the nature of the political system he’s advocating*).
If we’re talking about Marxist warfare influence on the LvMI, I’d be more concerned about Rothbard’s admiration for Che Guevera…
Also, these are all interesting topics, however you’ve been (and rightfully and admirably patiently so) quite specific in this very thread about what *economics* is. So you’re still not answering my question re Marxist vs Austrian *economic* theories of Hoppe.
To be honest, I can’t think of any uniquely Hoppean economic insights as such. That’s not to say there aren’t any, but what stands out about him are his cultural holdings, which are almost entirely, well, “cultural Marxism” (which shouldn’t be surprising since he was educated at that phenomenon’s birthplace). He holds that “libertarians must be radical and uncompromising [cultural] conservatives,” (Democracy: The God That Failed) for the same reason that the Soviet communists called for a “socialist realism” art, etc. — basically to create a “libertarian” version of the “New Soviet Man.” That also seems to be the basis for his authoritarian position on immigration, which does touch on economic motives.
I can’t say I’ve really detected much actual Austrianism in Hoppe, other than his fetish for the extreme apriorism that Mises borrowed from Kant.
But that could be a failure to read much Hoppe on my part. I simply haven’t read much straight econ, especially in long form, since the mid-to-late-1990s (basically, as soon as I stopped reviewing such texts for the Henry Hazlitt Foundation, I stopped spending a lot of time reading them) and while he was publishing in English by then, he didn’t really become well-known until 2001 (again, Democracy: The God That Failed).
Yeah I think his case against immigration doesn’t hold, but again, so do many from the LvMI, e.g. Walter Block. I think there’s been way more papers against his theory than in favor published in e.g. the JLS.
What I meant is that, as far as economic theories are concerned, he adheres by and large to the Austrian ones, not the Marxist ones. He doesn’t need to have had any “uniquely Hoppean economic insights” to be an Austrian and not a “pseudo-Austrian”.
I like his contributions to libertarianism:
– argumentation ethics
– defense of secession / decentralization / micro-states
I like defenses of secession / decentralization / micro-states, but I’ve never noticed that he’s among their more persuasive advocates.
His “argumentation ethics” is, to steal a phrase that Objectivists love to use, “nonsense on stilts.” It’s what would happen if someone ran “I’m rubber, you’re glue, whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you” through the Postmodernist Essay Generator.
Interesting you should take notice of Rothbard’s admiration for Che. I wouldn’t tie that to economics, though. Rothbard did economics, he did history, and he did strategy. It was in the area of strategy that he developed an affinity for the political left in the 1960s/1970s. Unfornately, by the 1990s, his strategic alliance itch led him to peckerwood populism. That’s where he was stuck when he died suddenly, and unfortunately LvMI has never moved on from that failed and sick approach.
”For example, an Austrian school economist would likely posit that increased government control of healthcare would reduce the overall availability (that is, supply) of care and direct appropriate care to patients less efficiently than a market system would. That’s a description of reality as the economist perceives it.”
Again, provide a practical example of this gibberish.
After all, there are numerous examples from my country and other countries, which totally refute that piece of nonsense.
“Again, provide a practical example of this gibberish.”
Somewhat difficult, since there aren’t a lot of market healthcare systems. But just as an example, in the US, which is a LITTLE more market-centric than Canada, 70% of patients are seen by a specialist within four weeks from time of referral, compared to 40% in Canada. If that specialist recommends surgery, 61% of Americans get the surgery within a month, while only 35% of Canadians do. Within four months, 97% of American patients versus 80% of Canadian patients. And the Canadian wait times are skewed low by the tens of thousands of Canadians who just come across the border for surgery every year rather than wait.
“Somewhat difficult, since there aren’t a lot of market healthcare systems.”
Let’s start with your national healthcare system.
I don’t have a national healthcare system. I live in the United States, which has a patchwork of healthcare systems — some “public,” some nominally “private” but heavily regulated (personally, I’ve opined that while there are problems with “single payer” it would probably work better than the existing US crazy quilt).
You do have a national healthcare system of sorts, it was discussed in Michael Moore’s Sicko.
I guess you could call it a “system.” But it’s a patchwork “system” — different “socialized” care programs for the elderly (Medicare), the poor (Medicaid), veterans (VA or Tricare), then a variety of highly regulated semi/pseudo “private” HMO/PPO programs in place since the 1970s, which are still referred to as “insurance” but are actually prepaid medical care, and which are mostly tied to specific employers rather than being very portable.
I guess you’ve never seen Michael Moore’s film Sicko, correct?
Yes, I’ve seen Sicko (I’ve seen all of Moore’s films; most are good, some better than others).
It just shows how morally corrupt your system is…
I don’t have a system.
You’re probably lying about that too.
Where did you get those statistics from?
The 2016 Commonwealth Fund International Health Policy survey.
That’s not an answer.
Show me the link, and the information from the link.
Actually, that is an answer. I’m not your fucking secretary.
Ha ha ha… I knew it was a lie, no statistical analysis exists, except in the delusional minds of you libertarians.
I knew you were lying, I just wanted to see you being hung on your own petard.
You asked for the source. I provided the source. Then you pretended that I didn’t provide the source. You could look at the source yourself (via the Commonwealth Fund’s site, or the Canadian Institute for Health Information’s site, or other gateways) if you cared to.
That seems to be a pattern with you. Whether it’s laziness, dishonesty, low IQ, or some combination of the three isn’t an especially interesting question, and it’s not my job to pick you up, set you on my lap, and read aloud to you, explaining all the multi-syllable words.
If you want to debate, start debating. If not, don’t.
Yes, true to form, you just double down on your lies and delusions.
Obviously, if you’re going to provide such specific statistics, you need to provide a link, but as we know now, you just told a massive lie.
“Obviously, if you’re going to answer my question, you need to also do all my homework for me too because I’m too f*cking lazy to use Google. Trolling isn’t worth it if it involves any actual work.”
Fixed, no charge.
But on the off chance that there’s anyone here who’s actually interested in facts instead of working hard at pretending to argue while not actually arguing, I suppose I could provide a link.
Really, you’ve totally unhinged.
In rational debate, if you make a claim about statistical analysis, you have to provide evidence.
You didn’t, and now your stamping your foot like a petulant child because you’ve been caught out lying.
“In rational debate, if you make a claim about statistical analysis, you have to provide evidence.”
But you chose not to have a debate of any kind, let alone rational. At no point have you stated a proposition to be argued for or against. All you’ve done is ask questions and then pretend you didn’t get answers so that you could pretend you “won” something.
Furthermore, I did provide evidence. I named my source. While it’s nice to make it easy and convenient for a debate opponent to go look at the source, it’s not an obligation of any kind. Especially when the opponent has made it clear that he’s not the least bit interested in an actual debate, but merely wants to flaunt his abject ignorance and hope nobody notices that’s what it is he’s flaunting.
“But you chose not to have a debate of any kind, let alone rational.”
Again, Pot-kettle.
Your delusion and deceit knows no boundaries. Remember, you dragged this conversation so far off course, you had to bring quantum physics into the discussion.
“Furthermore, I did provide evidence. I named my source.”
Again, deceitful and disingenuous.
You told me about some vague study from some year, but no specific link to test your claims.
I will make two points, firstly, I did try and find some information with that vague study, which you made an ambiguous connection to.
I found 4 PDFs in a website.
None, and I repeat, none of them supported your arguement.
In fact, it said that United States came last, when measured against the industrialised democracies that were surveyed.
The United States had the worst outcome for patient care, on all the metrics.
Secondly, the link you now have grudgingly supplied, is full of other links.
You expected me to go through the links on that webpage, the find the relevant information on which you relied.
I did, and I cannot find the statistics you relied on earlier.
Surprise surprise, you’re deliberately trying to avoid scrutiny, about your lie of the non-existent statistics earlier, and now you’re doing everything to cover them up with confusion and ambiguous links which have no relevance to your earlier claims.
All in all, a thoroughly deceitful exercise on your behalf.
Sorry you couldn’t find a way to win the debate you fantasized you were having but were unwilling to work at.
Better luck next time.
Who said it was a competition?
Not me…
You just cannot admit that you lied and deceived.
“Libertarian ideology is the natural enemy of science
Whether the issue is climate change, healthcare or gun control, libertarians are on a permanent collision course with evidence.”
–David Robert Grimes.
Technocracy /= science
Libertarianism = Misanthropy.
“Libertarian ideology is the natural enemy of science
Whether the issue is climate change, healthcare or gun control, libertarians are on a permanent collision course with evidence.”
–David Robert Grimes
”All an economist can do as an economist, is tell us what he predicts will happen based on the choices we make.”
Based on that comment, it renders Austrian economics useless, just like all the other economic models.
“I don’t care a great deal whether we do or not.”
I know you don’t, because so far, you’ve been eviscerated in this discussion.
“So far you’ve shown no desire to do so and every desire to avoid doing so at any cost.”
Your lies are getting more desperate, and more foolish. People will read this thread, and see who is lacking desire.
It’s you of course, because you have completely failed in your side of the arguement.
If you truly wish to go back to the topic, do so, and restart the discussion.
But I’m not holding my breath.
“I don’t have to worry about “staying relevant.” Moderating comments here is my job, so I’m “relevant” any time I choose to be.”
2 questions, are you saying you’re a moderator on this blog?
And are you saying you can moderate your own comments to make yourself look relevant?
I am the comments moderator on this blog.
I don’t have to moderate my own comments to be relevant. I’m relevant by definition. I decide (within guidelines that I helped write) who gets to post here and what they get to post. You’re welcome.
“I’m relevant by definition.”
😆😅🤣
https://www.amazon.com.au/Primal-Prescription-Surviving-Sick-Sinkhole-ebook/dp/B011AA2LZA
Interesting. Murphy’s “Chaos Theory” was pretty good as I recall.
Oh, and by the way, you are attributing quotes to me now, that I never made?
You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel.
But hey, that’s nothing new from you “libertarians.”
There is a quid pro quo that keeps countries in line. We allow other countries to sell their products here, which provides jobs for their workers and ours. Purely economic. Otherwise those countries would speak their collective minds. However, to do so might be damaging to their economies. So, we will dance close to WWIII, but boy, sell those products.
April 13, 2022 The Collapse of America: Distant Early Warning Signs of Uncle Sam’s Demise. Andrei Martyanov Part II
Repeat broadcast originally airing November 26, 2021. – [MAW] “It took Russia twenty years to return to being a normal state with a vibrant economy, powerful armed forces and self-respect, but Russians still had a nation, even in those horrifying times of the 1990s so-called “liberal” experiment.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-collapse-of-america-distant-early-warning-signs-of-uncle-sams-demise-andrei-martyanov-2/5777340
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d7579f7f625e90adb0d0291c349d941e57a968652a9e03c57fd16afb6842e761.jpg
Looks like US and EU are shooting themselves in the foot by these sanctions. Germany is talking about long-term recession, and Germany means the EU. Meanwhile, the effect on Russia is still uncertian. China and India seem to have come to the rescue. Speaking of the US, if sanctions never work, why is the US keep trying them? This I don’t understand.
I’d be willing to bet that some of the sanctions against specific Russian individuals are returning windfall profits to well-connected American individuals. Is anybody watching for that?
Here are those wise and brave countries not supporting US sanctions on Russia.
BRICS group (Brazil, India, China, South Africa). 41% of the world population.
The countries of OSC (Belarus, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Armenia, Kyrgyzstan).
Azerbaijan and Moldova have abandoned anti-Russian restrictions. But the most surprising position is Georgia.
Latin America (Mexico, Argentina, Venezuela, Guatemala, Colombia, Cuba, Nicaragua, Chile, Peru).
ASIAN countries minus Singapore
The Middle East (Syria, Egypt, Turkey, Iraq, Iran …..surprisingly also US allies U.A.E , israel and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
The Balkans (Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina).
The current admin is there to destroy america. This is by design.
Economic illiteracy.