The second chapter of my running commentary on this book....
The book uses the name "Zomia" to describe the region under question: all the lands at altitudes roughly 300 meters and higher, stretching from the Central Highlands in Vietnam all the way to the far northeast tip of India. This region, up until approximately 50 years ago, was fundamentally an ungoverned region. The book goes on to explain how and why.
Other parts of the world have shared similar geographic and political characteristics. Some extend the region even further westward all the way to Afghanistan. The author allows for this, but the further region is not his area of study.
This point, however, caused me to reflect. Coincidentally (or not, perhaps) the two bookends (Vietnam and Afghanistan) have a couple of obvious shared relationship…I will pause for a moment on this.
I have come to appreciate that the underlying objective of the wars of the West over the last 100 years and more is for control. Not for oil, not to stop the spread of Communism, not to make the world safe for democracy, not for women’s rights, not for WMD. I first came across this concept of war for control at The Daily Bell.
Just control. If a region can be brought under control, then all exploitation is available to the conqueror. Yes, this may also include exploitation of local natural resources, but mostly it appears it is for exploitation of the population through the mechanisms of western style regulatory democracy. Central banking, funny money, taxes, corporate-state mercantilism, etc.
Has there ever been a more thorough system of control developed? Better than slavery and serfdom, as the victims of the modern western state are groomed to one day (perhaps after a generation or two) be voluntarily plucked.
So what of the two shared relationships? Let’s go to the less obvious (at least to me before I began reading this book) first. The two bookends (and the regions in between) shared the feature that they were quite ungoverned in the altitudes above approximately 300 meters. No state was receiving the benefit of exploiting the population. (I will discuss the reasons why in future posts.)
Now to the more obvious shared relationship: the two share the position of being on the opposite side in multiple and various wars against the west.
In hindsight, it is very difficult for any standard explanation regarding the purpose and objectives for the war in Vietnam to hold together. For Afghanistan, we don’t even need much hindsight. This war and its objectives cannot be explained.
So what if the objective was merely control, control for exploitation via the mechanisms of western political and economic levers? All tried and proven levers useful to extract wealth from an almost unsuspecting population. Perhaps you don’t believe this is true, and you might be right. But the shoe certainly does fit.
Left alone and outside of the sphere of state control, this population worked primarily for their own benefit, and that of family and community. However, once controlled, they could be counted. They could be taxed. They could be easily conscripted. They could be levered up to increase the wealth of those in power – wealth being one of the byproducts of such control.
The control does not have to be direct – it was not needed that Vietnam became the 51st state. With the mechanisms of mercantilism in place, wealth can be extracted. This is sufficient.
It strikes me that there is good reason to look at this region (including Zomia, but in fact running further west to Afghanistan) in this light. Also to look at other regions with similar characteristics elsewhere in the world in the same way.
As mentioned earlier, I will get into why these areas were ungoverned and why the people lived in such a state. For now, it is perhaps enough to consider that this idea of control is enough of an objective for war. For the spark of this insight, I owe The Daily Bell. For bringing the idea to fruition, I am indebted to the author of this book.
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Perpetual War
Original article at The Daily Bell:
http://www.thedailybell.com/1683/Anthony-Wile-Perpetual-War-for-Perpetual-Employment.html
@Rick Spencer
“I feel the problem with this article and all others like it is that they are unwilling to admit to the evil that exists among men…”
There is no doubt evil exists in this world. I admit it.
“…and the hatred of many who want to destroy the U.S.”
Although one valid query is to ask why so many want to (supposedly) destroy the US, I will skip that one. Many need something to fear. Instead, I will ask, what power on earth could have destroyed the US? Don’t offer global nuclear holocaust, as those with the capability to “destroy” the US via nuclear means also knew the consequences of this attempt.
So who? Hitler? Saddam? Neither had the ability or desire to destroy the US. Hitler couldn’t even cross the channel (and never wanted to) let alone the Atlantic.
Men with towels on their heads living in caves? Nineteen men hijacking four planes? No ability to destroy the US here, other than setting in motion the completely suicidal reaction of the US Government. In this you have a point, although my guess is it is not the one you are attempting to make.
Who or what in the last 100 years posed this threat?
“What are we to do? Of course war is detestable and the last group that wants it is the military, as they along with their families are the major groups to personally suffer.”
If they don’t want to suffer, don’t volunteer. Don’t send their sons and daughters to fight 10,000 miles away against people who never did anything against them and never would or could anyway.
Certainly, defend the shores of America. A five thousand mile wide moat on both sides and a hundred million gun owners are a pretty good start toward national defense.
“Most readers were not around to experience WWII, the Cold War, Korea, Vietnam, or the present actions as have I. Without U.S. involvement in these you would have a far different life and the whining would be considerable higher.”
None of these conflicts posed a risk to the situation in the US. However, they each contributed to the bankruptcy of the US. They each contributed to destroying the productive capacity of the US – both man and machine.
The Great War would have ended with a much more just peace had not the US intervened. Germany would have reached a more reasonable settlement with France and England. Then, who knows? Does WWII even happen? And when it did, where was the risk to the US? Had FDR not done everything in his power to ensure the US was attacked, it is likely the US would not have even been attacked. The Cold War was an invention, it is now quite well recognized that the US regularly inflated Soviet capabilities in order to maintain an enemy. Korea? Where is the risk you are concerned about? Vietnam? The US lost, and the “free” world didn’t end as we were promised it would before and during the war.
And missing from your list: Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you have a special purpose in mind here as well? Retribution for the acts of 19 people? None of whom survived the event anyway?
Keep peeling back the onion, you will find even more evil behind the insanity of the last one hundred years. I have only outlined the first layer or two of the fallacy.
The sad part is that, despite all the evidence to the contrary to anyone who spends a little time looking, people still believe as you do. And they will continue to send their sons and daughters to kill people that never did them any harm, and they will continue to send their sons and daughters to be killed.
http://www.thedailybell.com/1683/Anthony-Wile-Perpetual-War-for-Perpetual-Employment.html
@Rick Spencer
“I feel the problem with this article and all others like it is that they are unwilling to admit to the evil that exists among men…”
There is no doubt evil exists in this world. I admit it.
“…and the hatred of many who want to destroy the U.S.”
Although one valid query is to ask why so many want to (supposedly) destroy the US, I will skip that one. Many need something to fear. Instead, I will ask, what power on earth could have destroyed the US? Don’t offer global nuclear holocaust, as those with the capability to “destroy” the US via nuclear means also knew the consequences of this attempt.
So who? Hitler? Saddam? Neither had the ability or desire to destroy the US. Hitler couldn’t even cross the channel (and never wanted to) let alone the Atlantic.
Men with towels on their heads living in caves? Nineteen men hijacking four planes? No ability to destroy the US here, other than setting in motion the completely suicidal reaction of the US Government. In this you have a point, although my guess is it is not the one you are attempting to make.
Who or what in the last 100 years posed this threat?
“What are we to do? Of course war is detestable and the last group that wants it is the military, as they along with their families are the major groups to personally suffer.”
If they don’t want to suffer, don’t volunteer. Don’t send their sons and daughters to fight 10,000 miles away against people who never did anything against them and never would or could anyway.
Certainly, defend the shores of America. A five thousand mile wide moat on both sides and a hundred million gun owners are a pretty good start toward national defense.
“Most readers were not around to experience WWII, the Cold War, Korea, Vietnam, or the present actions as have I. Without U.S. involvement in these you would have a far different life and the whining would be considerable higher.”
None of these conflicts posed a risk to the situation in the US. However, they each contributed to the bankruptcy of the US. They each contributed to destroying the productive capacity of the US – both man and machine.
The Great War would have ended with a much more just peace had not the US intervened. Germany would have reached a more reasonable settlement with France and England. Then, who knows? Does WWII even happen? And when it did, where was the risk to the US? Had FDR not done everything in his power to ensure the US was attacked, it is likely the US would not have even been attacked. The Cold War was an invention, it is now quite well recognized that the US regularly inflated Soviet capabilities in order to maintain an enemy. Korea? Where is the risk you are concerned about? Vietnam? The US lost, and the “free” world didn’t end as we were promised it would before and during the war.
And missing from your list: Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you have a special purpose in mind here as well? Retribution for the acts of 19 people? None of whom survived the event anyway?
Keep peeling back the onion, you will find even more evil behind the insanity of the last one hundred years. I have only outlined the first layer or two of the fallacy.
The sad part is that, despite all the evidence to the contrary to anyone who spends a little time looking, people still believe as you do. And they will continue to send their sons and daughters to kill people that never did them any harm, and they will continue to send their sons and daughters to be killed.
Friday, January 14, 2011
Geo-Rent: A Plea to Public Economists, Fred Foldvary
This article can be found in PDF form via a Google search.
I read the article at the encouragement of Ingo Bischoff. I "met" Ingo through our posting at The Daily Bell.
I will offer a brief summary of the article, and a few thoughts. Of course, errors in my summary, if any, are my own.
"The idea is to tax the market value of land, exclusive of the value of improvements."
This is the basic idea of taxation, as presented by Foldvary. The idea is that, through "public" services / expenditures, it is the land value increase that best reflects the ultimate value and efficiency of the "public" improvements. Therefore, it is the land value that should bear the burden of paying for the services. (Here you have my stumbling explanation of Foldvary's eloquently stated idea.)
It is an intriguing idea. Set aside my distaste for any form of taxation (it is theft, after all), the idea of a land value tax has a nice ring. To the extent roads, sidewalks, security (including national defense presumably), public spaces, provide utility, they do so to a given geographic location and inherently make that land underlying the location more valuable.
The tax follows the location, not the person. To the extent an individual feels unfairly taxed (and to the extent that this land value tax replaces all other forms of tax), it is quite easy to avoid paying the tax - sell the property and leave the jurisdiction.
Another possibility comes to mind, however I will admit I have not thought it through....
It would seem that this idea is quite conducive to eliminating (at least greatly reducing) government from the equation. Certainly a private enterprise would be motivated to improve the land value via providing market-demanded benefits in the most cost-efficient means possible.
Localities (cities? counties?) could regularly bid out the contract, with a predetermined tax rate and / or the tax rate to be submitted as part of the bid. Assessments would also be preformed by a third party. Basic services could be outlined in an RFP/RFQ process. The possibility of the service provider being kicked out at the end of the contract term (due to poor service or other reasons) would help motivate toward better performance, and bankruptcy does not automatically have to be paid for by the "customers" (as opposed to the tax-payers always being on the hook.
As I said, I haven't thought it all through. But it is an interesting concept.
I thank Ingo Bischoff for writing and advocating a read of this concept.
I read the article at the encouragement of Ingo Bischoff. I "met" Ingo through our posting at The Daily Bell.
I will offer a brief summary of the article, and a few thoughts. Of course, errors in my summary, if any, are my own.
"The idea is to tax the market value of land, exclusive of the value of improvements."
This is the basic idea of taxation, as presented by Foldvary. The idea is that, through "public" services / expenditures, it is the land value increase that best reflects the ultimate value and efficiency of the "public" improvements. Therefore, it is the land value that should bear the burden of paying for the services. (Here you have my stumbling explanation of Foldvary's eloquently stated idea.)
It is an intriguing idea. Set aside my distaste for any form of taxation (it is theft, after all), the idea of a land value tax has a nice ring. To the extent roads, sidewalks, security (including national defense presumably), public spaces, provide utility, they do so to a given geographic location and inherently make that land underlying the location more valuable.
The tax follows the location, not the person. To the extent an individual feels unfairly taxed (and to the extent that this land value tax replaces all other forms of tax), it is quite easy to avoid paying the tax - sell the property and leave the jurisdiction.
Another possibility comes to mind, however I will admit I have not thought it through....
It would seem that this idea is quite conducive to eliminating (at least greatly reducing) government from the equation. Certainly a private enterprise would be motivated to improve the land value via providing market-demanded benefits in the most cost-efficient means possible.
Localities (cities? counties?) could regularly bid out the contract, with a predetermined tax rate and / or the tax rate to be submitted as part of the bid. Assessments would also be preformed by a third party. Basic services could be outlined in an RFP/RFQ process. The possibility of the service provider being kicked out at the end of the contract term (due to poor service or other reasons) would help motivate toward better performance, and bankruptcy does not automatically have to be paid for by the "customers" (as opposed to the tax-payers always being on the hook.
As I said, I haven't thought it all through. But it is an interesting concept.
I thank Ingo Bischoff for writing and advocating a read of this concept.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Fekete: Gold and Honey
http://www.thedailybell.com/1675/Antal-Fekete-Gold-and-Honey.html
My various comments posted at the Daily Bell:
1) The only source of non-inflationary credit is savings.
2) If credit is provided absent savings, it is inflation by definition
3) Gold can circulate without any assistance from real bills
4) Silver (or any other unencumbered asset a party in the trade finds acceptable) can extinguish debt
@Jeff Albertson For an article, start here.
Blumen wrote a series of article, I believe this is the first in the series. If you want further discussion, type "Fekete" in the search box at Mises.org
http://mises.org/daily/1833
One nice feature of Austrian economics is that it is not "over my head." But economics shouldn't be over anyone's head. It only describes how we live our daily life. The basics of Austrian economics are quite simple to grasp: value is subjective, money should be commodity based, etc.
I do not ascribe the same description of simplicity to RBD as it relates to Austrian economics. I understand the mechanism of RBD, just as I understand other economic mechanisms ' for example, central banking. But I do not see a connection of RBD to Austrian economics ' see my post above. The explanations to some basic questions seem over my head, but I am not a trained economist.
@Philip Mccormack, Jeff Albertson
My intent with the Blumen article was not to suggest it was the last word, or that I agree fully with each comment. As Jeff mentioned "...because I had never seen him mentioned by the Von Mises-linked scholars..." I thought I would get the ball rolling regarding this comment.
As does Philip, I also suggest you read all you desire on this subject. I have done so and am not satisfied regarding my four critiques above.
So, I guess instead of looking "upon it as a gift", I see a void. I guess my eyes weren't "opened!" :-)
@Philip Mccormack
"Austrian economists have the same problem with RBD." Yes, it appears many do. The entire doctrine would bother me less if Fekete did not refer to himself or his economics as Austrian – just as I am not so bothered with Friedman as he didn't refer to himself as an Austrian. The theories can be wrong, but at least not associated with the Austrian school.
"Strictly speaking a bill of exchange...is not a credit instrument. It is a clearing instrument." Perhaps I take his words out of context, but this is how Dr. Fekete has described at least one aspect of real bills in a previous article: "I made the central point that the source of commercial credit is not saving but consumption." As this was discussed exhaustively the last time Dr. Fekete posted here, without correction or clarification from any advocates as to my interpretation, I assume I do not misunderstand him.
As a source of credit without savings, it must be inflationary. As a clearing instrument, it is not necessary. Gold (or silver, or whatever the market chooses) can clear.
I accept that real bills may naturally spring up in a free market, and in fact can provide certain benefits. But, just like drug use in a free society, it does not require me to be a proponent or to ignore the fallacies, the main ones listed above.
@PAGAU
"...eventually some low-life crook (read moneychangers) will seek to control or corrupt the standard. In such a case it is the government's rightful place to step in and regulate it."
Trusting a monopoly, with the power to legislate, interpret, and enforce its own dictates (backed by a gun), is the most certain way to ensure that which you most fear. Virtually every time the government held this monopoly, it cheated. Why would you expect otherwise now?
There is no need for a government mint. We do not have a government "mint" for cars, yet the production of cars is infinitely more complex that the production of turning bullion into a recognizable coin.
@DB
Fekete: "I made the central point that the source of commercial credit is not saving but consumption."
DB: “What is your point regarding this statement? Can you clarify?”
My point is reflected in the first two statements of my first post on this topic.
1) The only source of non-inflationary credit is savings.
2) If credit is provided absent savings, it is inflation by definition
There can be no credit without savings. Credit comes from savings. Absent savings there is no credit. How many ways can I say it? EXCEPT if the credit is NOT backed by savings. Then it is no different than funny money, and it is inflation.
This point was discussed ad nauseum the last time Dr. Fekete wrote for DB, and never clarified or refuted. It was defended that the source of commercial credit is something other than savings...the source is consumption.
Credit comes from consumption? If there is some theory that explains how two people can eat the same meal, I am all ears. Seriously...enough people fawn all over Dr. Fekete (including Ingo Bischoff, who I have grown to respect) that I want to believe there is meat there. Let's start by explaining this seeming impossibility.
And keep it simple, as Austrian economics doesn't require convoluted explanations.
@DB, I will clarify one statement in my last post, I did not mean to suggest that I include Ingo as one who "fawns" over Dr. Fekete, as many others do. I have found his statements on many subjects quite well reasoned, even though I don't always come to the same conclusion as he does.
@PAGAU, this is too much. Is there only the government mint, or will others be allowed to compete freely, unhindered by legal tender laws or other tax and legislated disadvantages?
@Philip Mccormack, "Social Circulating capital." This adds nothing to clarification. This term is nonsensical to anyone who understands free markets and Austrian economics. Words have meaning. If these words are yours, please consider the interpretation. If they are Dr. Fekete's, I would suggest the same to him. Is the "New Austrian School" inventing an entirely new dictionary with new meanings to old terms?
In any case, Dr. Fekete is quite clear, and I am not misquoting him. "I made the central point that the source of commercial credit is not saving but consumption." Perhaps these terms also have meanings not previously understood in the study of economics and finance.
With apologies, I will sign off for the next day or two, other responsibilities. If there is any clarification offered in the meantime, I shall reply when I come up for air.
Intuitive Reason: "These accounts are used in the purchase of bills, and are the 'savings' that form the source of credit. As the source of credit is a pool of savings, the credit is non inflationary."
Dr. Fekete: "I made the central point that the source of commercial credit is not saving but consumption."
Your statement and Dr. Fekete's statement are not only contradictory, you have made the argument fully circular: The source of credit is a pool of savings which is not the source of credit.
@Intuitive Reason
Saying the same thing in a different way doesn't change the fact that you are saying the same contradictory thing.
It isn't only the transfer of gold from the consumer to the retailer that is involved. That covers one day of the ninety days. What of the other eighty-nine days, and all the intermediate producers involved? For eighty-nine days there is no transfer of gold, just transfers of man-made paper. Fiduciary media, by any other name, smells as (un)sweet.
"At the same time, what these funds are between receipt and maturity is savings. And as you said, savings are a non-inflationary when used as credit."
But Dr. Fekete says the source IS NOT SAVINGS. Why do you say it is (except when you say it isn't)?
The beauty of Austrian economics (besides its truth) is in its simplicity. It is simple because it captures very well human behavior and human action.
Besides the inflationary, fiduciary media, non-asset backed currency aspects of real bills, something as convoluted as RBD, whatever the merits, cannot be called Austrian. My objections still stand.
@PAGAU
BM: "Is there only the government mint, or will others be allowed to compete freely, unhindered by legal tender laws or other tax and legislated disadvantages?"
PAGAU: "You seem to have zero tolerance for government involvement in money."
Yes. Tell me why some people who happen to work for a particular employer should be allowed a monopoly, backed by force, over this process? The market is supremely capable of sorting this out.
"I am in favor of reining in the out of control government….But I consider a government operating within the limits of the constitution to be a good thing."
How do you propose reigning in a group of people to whom you gladly grant a monopoly of legalized force over you? By what means will you be able to keep them in “control”?
What would you propose to do if a group of individuals decided that they willingly and voluntarily wanted to transact in coin other than that minted by the government? By what moral basis would you stop them? Your answer will either cause you to refute your faith in granting the government such a monopoly, or it will condemn you as a willing cheerleader for a government agent compelling that group via a gun to the belly.
Your choice.
My various comments posted at the Daily Bell:
1) The only source of non-inflationary credit is savings.
2) If credit is provided absent savings, it is inflation by definition
3) Gold can circulate without any assistance from real bills
4) Silver (or any other unencumbered asset a party in the trade finds acceptable) can extinguish debt
@Jeff Albertson For an article, start here.
Blumen wrote a series of article, I believe this is the first in the series. If you want further discussion, type "Fekete" in the search box at Mises.org
http://mises.org/daily/1833
One nice feature of Austrian economics is that it is not "over my head." But economics shouldn't be over anyone's head. It only describes how we live our daily life. The basics of Austrian economics are quite simple to grasp: value is subjective, money should be commodity based, etc.
I do not ascribe the same description of simplicity to RBD as it relates to Austrian economics. I understand the mechanism of RBD, just as I understand other economic mechanisms ' for example, central banking. But I do not see a connection of RBD to Austrian economics ' see my post above. The explanations to some basic questions seem over my head, but I am not a trained economist.
@Philip Mccormack, Jeff Albertson
My intent with the Blumen article was not to suggest it was the last word, or that I agree fully with each comment. As Jeff mentioned "...because I had never seen him mentioned by the Von Mises-linked scholars..." I thought I would get the ball rolling regarding this comment.
As does Philip, I also suggest you read all you desire on this subject. I have done so and am not satisfied regarding my four critiques above.
So, I guess instead of looking "upon it as a gift", I see a void. I guess my eyes weren't "opened!" :-)
@Philip Mccormack
"Austrian economists have the same problem with RBD." Yes, it appears many do. The entire doctrine would bother me less if Fekete did not refer to himself or his economics as Austrian – just as I am not so bothered with Friedman as he didn't refer to himself as an Austrian. The theories can be wrong, but at least not associated with the Austrian school.
"Strictly speaking a bill of exchange...is not a credit instrument. It is a clearing instrument." Perhaps I take his words out of context, but this is how Dr. Fekete has described at least one aspect of real bills in a previous article: "I made the central point that the source of commercial credit is not saving but consumption." As this was discussed exhaustively the last time Dr. Fekete posted here, without correction or clarification from any advocates as to my interpretation, I assume I do not misunderstand him.
As a source of credit without savings, it must be inflationary. As a clearing instrument, it is not necessary. Gold (or silver, or whatever the market chooses) can clear.
I accept that real bills may naturally spring up in a free market, and in fact can provide certain benefits. But, just like drug use in a free society, it does not require me to be a proponent or to ignore the fallacies, the main ones listed above.
@PAGAU
"...eventually some low-life crook (read moneychangers) will seek to control or corrupt the standard. In such a case it is the government's rightful place to step in and regulate it."
Trusting a monopoly, with the power to legislate, interpret, and enforce its own dictates (backed by a gun), is the most certain way to ensure that which you most fear. Virtually every time the government held this monopoly, it cheated. Why would you expect otherwise now?
There is no need for a government mint. We do not have a government "mint" for cars, yet the production of cars is infinitely more complex that the production of turning bullion into a recognizable coin.
@DB
Fekete: "I made the central point that the source of commercial credit is not saving but consumption."
DB: “What is your point regarding this statement? Can you clarify?”
My point is reflected in the first two statements of my first post on this topic.
1) The only source of non-inflationary credit is savings.
2) If credit is provided absent savings, it is inflation by definition
There can be no credit without savings. Credit comes from savings. Absent savings there is no credit. How many ways can I say it? EXCEPT if the credit is NOT backed by savings. Then it is no different than funny money, and it is inflation.
This point was discussed ad nauseum the last time Dr. Fekete wrote for DB, and never clarified or refuted. It was defended that the source of commercial credit is something other than savings...the source is consumption.
Credit comes from consumption? If there is some theory that explains how two people can eat the same meal, I am all ears. Seriously...enough people fawn all over Dr. Fekete (including Ingo Bischoff, who I have grown to respect) that I want to believe there is meat there. Let's start by explaining this seeming impossibility.
And keep it simple, as Austrian economics doesn't require convoluted explanations.
@DB, I will clarify one statement in my last post, I did not mean to suggest that I include Ingo as one who "fawns" over Dr. Fekete, as many others do. I have found his statements on many subjects quite well reasoned, even though I don't always come to the same conclusion as he does.
@PAGAU, this is too much. Is there only the government mint, or will others be allowed to compete freely, unhindered by legal tender laws or other tax and legislated disadvantages?
@Philip Mccormack, "Social Circulating capital." This adds nothing to clarification. This term is nonsensical to anyone who understands free markets and Austrian economics. Words have meaning. If these words are yours, please consider the interpretation. If they are Dr. Fekete's, I would suggest the same to him. Is the "New Austrian School" inventing an entirely new dictionary with new meanings to old terms?
In any case, Dr. Fekete is quite clear, and I am not misquoting him. "I made the central point that the source of commercial credit is not saving but consumption." Perhaps these terms also have meanings not previously understood in the study of economics and finance.
With apologies, I will sign off for the next day or two, other responsibilities. If there is any clarification offered in the meantime, I shall reply when I come up for air.
Intuitive Reason: "These accounts are used in the purchase of bills, and are the 'savings' that form the source of credit. As the source of credit is a pool of savings, the credit is non inflationary."
Dr. Fekete: "I made the central point that the source of commercial credit is not saving but consumption."
Your statement and Dr. Fekete's statement are not only contradictory, you have made the argument fully circular: The source of credit is a pool of savings which is not the source of credit.
@Intuitive Reason
Saying the same thing in a different way doesn't change the fact that you are saying the same contradictory thing.
It isn't only the transfer of gold from the consumer to the retailer that is involved. That covers one day of the ninety days. What of the other eighty-nine days, and all the intermediate producers involved? For eighty-nine days there is no transfer of gold, just transfers of man-made paper. Fiduciary media, by any other name, smells as (un)sweet.
"At the same time, what these funds are between receipt and maturity is savings. And as you said, savings are a non-inflationary when used as credit."
But Dr. Fekete says the source IS NOT SAVINGS. Why do you say it is (except when you say it isn't)?
The beauty of Austrian economics (besides its truth) is in its simplicity. It is simple because it captures very well human behavior and human action.
Besides the inflationary, fiduciary media, non-asset backed currency aspects of real bills, something as convoluted as RBD, whatever the merits, cannot be called Austrian. My objections still stand.
@PAGAU
BM: "Is there only the government mint, or will others be allowed to compete freely, unhindered by legal tender laws or other tax and legislated disadvantages?"
PAGAU: "You seem to have zero tolerance for government involvement in money."
Yes. Tell me why some people who happen to work for a particular employer should be allowed a monopoly, backed by force, over this process? The market is supremely capable of sorting this out.
"I am in favor of reining in the out of control government….But I consider a government operating within the limits of the constitution to be a good thing."
How do you propose reigning in a group of people to whom you gladly grant a monopoly of legalized force over you? By what means will you be able to keep them in “control”?
What would you propose to do if a group of individuals decided that they willingly and voluntarily wanted to transact in coin other than that minted by the government? By what moral basis would you stop them? Your answer will either cause you to refute your faith in granting the government such a monopoly, or it will condemn you as a willing cheerleader for a government agent compelling that group via a gun to the belly.
Your choice.
The Art of NOT Being Governed: Introduction
This is the first of what I anticipate will be a series of commentaries regarding the above titled book, authored by James C. Scott.
A description of the book can be found here: http://tinyurl.com/4lltkkd
I do not intend this to be a traditional book review. I have found several comments and thoughts within the book that I find valuable, and my intent is to expand on these.
The subtitle of the book is: An Anarchist History of Southeast Asia. I find this intriguing. Whenever the idea of anarchy is discussed (in the sense of no sovereign authority), one of many objections raised is that of looking for examples where anarchy has "worked."
Before moving on with the book, consider this query: where has anarchy worked? Those who defend anarchy on whatever grounds have likely had this thrown at them in every conversation. Those who believe anarchy equals chaos likely have thrown this out in every conversation.
First, what does “worked” mean? Worked for whom? Worked how? The same can be asked about the state. When has the state (defined as the legal monopoly of force and the resultant violence) worked? For whom? How?
For those who don’t want to be under the threat of coercion, inherently anarchy works. For those who prefer peaceful means of relationships, again anarchy works. For such people, in fact it is the only form of structuring society that “works.”
For those who believe it is right that man lords over man, anarchy does not work. The state certainly works. For those who believe that the same act could be either legal or illegal, depending on the employer of the actor, the state works.
But where has the state worked in regards to those areas of our lives the state says it is working on? The economy, peaceful coexistence with others in the world, elimination of poverty, teenage drinking, illicit drugs, health care, etc. the list is exactly as long as the list of state-run programs. Should the burden of proof really be on the proponent of anarchy?
That there is a lack of historical record regarding successful anarchist societies is not necessarily a reflection of the possibility that there were none. In fact, much of the world for much of recorded history was without a state as that term is known today.
But even if there were no examples in history, certainly if enough people believed in living peacefully with their neighbors, anarchy would work. In fact, much of our lives are lived this way. There is no central authority in developing our personal relationships, food choices (once you get past the government approved list), vacation destinations (once you get past the government approved list), etc. Why could not more / most / all of our actions be developed in a similar manner, free from coercion? It certainly COULD work if enough people wanted it so.
As to the history, or lack thereof, of anarchist society, I return to the book, and a quote:
“It is said that the history of peoples who have a history is the history of class struggle. It might be said with at least as much truthfulness, that the history of peoples without history is a history of their struggle against the state.”
Pierre Clastres, La societé contre l’état
Why is there so little information of people living outside of the organizing power of the state? I offer two thoughts:
1) Those outside of the control of the state didn’t bother documenting much of anything. Why would they? No need for a census, birth certificates, tax records, W-2 forms, etc. No rulers bent on documenting or fabricating a legacy.
2) What benefit is there to the state (the gatekeeper for much of the education of the world) to educate people on the true history of those who lived outside of the state? We are taught that this is not possible. Why would the state teach anything else?
Where are the examples of anarchist society? Look around you. Much of what you truly enjoy in life is based on choices and relationships that you make without being forced into these.
Look at history, the state as it is known throughout the world has not always been so all-encompassing throughout every corner of the planet. Those derogatorily referred to as barbarians, gypsies, the “raw”, natives, aborigines, etc., are those who lived outside of the state.
This book looks specifically at one region of the world in order to tell this tale. It is the highland area of Southeast Asia, from Vietnam west to the easternmost tip of Northeast India. But the story is applicable elsewhere, as the author makes clear and as I will further explore.
A description of the book can be found here: http://tinyurl.com/4lltkkd
I do not intend this to be a traditional book review. I have found several comments and thoughts within the book that I find valuable, and my intent is to expand on these.
The subtitle of the book is: An Anarchist History of Southeast Asia. I find this intriguing. Whenever the idea of anarchy is discussed (in the sense of no sovereign authority), one of many objections raised is that of looking for examples where anarchy has "worked."
Before moving on with the book, consider this query: where has anarchy worked? Those who defend anarchy on whatever grounds have likely had this thrown at them in every conversation. Those who believe anarchy equals chaos likely have thrown this out in every conversation.
First, what does “worked” mean? Worked for whom? Worked how? The same can be asked about the state. When has the state (defined as the legal monopoly of force and the resultant violence) worked? For whom? How?
For those who don’t want to be under the threat of coercion, inherently anarchy works. For those who prefer peaceful means of relationships, again anarchy works. For such people, in fact it is the only form of structuring society that “works.”
For those who believe it is right that man lords over man, anarchy does not work. The state certainly works. For those who believe that the same act could be either legal or illegal, depending on the employer of the actor, the state works.
But where has the state worked in regards to those areas of our lives the state says it is working on? The economy, peaceful coexistence with others in the world, elimination of poverty, teenage drinking, illicit drugs, health care, etc. the list is exactly as long as the list of state-run programs. Should the burden of proof really be on the proponent of anarchy?
That there is a lack of historical record regarding successful anarchist societies is not necessarily a reflection of the possibility that there were none. In fact, much of the world for much of recorded history was without a state as that term is known today.
But even if there were no examples in history, certainly if enough people believed in living peacefully with their neighbors, anarchy would work. In fact, much of our lives are lived this way. There is no central authority in developing our personal relationships, food choices (once you get past the government approved list), vacation destinations (once you get past the government approved list), etc. Why could not more / most / all of our actions be developed in a similar manner, free from coercion? It certainly COULD work if enough people wanted it so.
As to the history, or lack thereof, of anarchist society, I return to the book, and a quote:
“It is said that the history of peoples who have a history is the history of class struggle. It might be said with at least as much truthfulness, that the history of peoples without history is a history of their struggle against the state.”
Pierre Clastres, La societé contre l’état
Why is there so little information of people living outside of the organizing power of the state? I offer two thoughts:
1) Those outside of the control of the state didn’t bother documenting much of anything. Why would they? No need for a census, birth certificates, tax records, W-2 forms, etc. No rulers bent on documenting or fabricating a legacy.
2) What benefit is there to the state (the gatekeeper for much of the education of the world) to educate people on the true history of those who lived outside of the state? We are taught that this is not possible. Why would the state teach anything else?
Where are the examples of anarchist society? Look around you. Much of what you truly enjoy in life is based on choices and relationships that you make without being forced into these.
Look at history, the state as it is known throughout the world has not always been so all-encompassing throughout every corner of the planet. Those derogatorily referred to as barbarians, gypsies, the “raw”, natives, aborigines, etc., are those who lived outside of the state.
This book looks specifically at one region of the world in order to tell this tale. It is the highland area of Southeast Asia, from Vietnam west to the easternmost tip of Northeast India. But the story is applicable elsewhere, as the author makes clear and as I will further explore.
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Arizona Rep. Giffords Shot, Five Are Killed in Rampage
http://www.cnbc.com/id/40979173
Violence is not the answer. Education is my preferred method. Others prefer political action. Any non-coercive method is fine. Violence only begets violence. It does not bring lasting solutions. It only harms innocent people.
This is a sad event. Violence is not the answer.
Violence is not the answer. Education is my preferred method. Others prefer political action. Any non-coercive method is fine. Violence only begets violence. It does not bring lasting solutions. It only harms innocent people.
This is a sad event. Violence is not the answer.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
re How to Use the Constitution, Dr. Machan
This editorial is found at The Daily Bell:
http://www.thedailybell.com/1660/Tibor-Machan-How-to-Use-the-Constitution.html
My reply, also posted at the host site:
"Honest constitutional study and understanding would be needed. Only then would the imperative to pay heed to the Constitution come to something valuable, important."
This statement is a nice summary of the problems inherent with a call for a "return to the Constitution." Those "bent on pushing other people around" will always find new meanings, loopholes, etc., one building upon the other in a never ending circle of more control. They fought a war that resulted in the deaths of over 600,000 to prove this point. They have eliminated state appointment of senators. They have ensured all "checks and balances" are those held by members of the home team.
These games will always be so when the people are convinced that one entity has the legitimate authority to write the laws, interpret them, and provide enforcement and adjudication. Today, some longingly look to congress to be the force to return to the Constitution (whatever that means). Dream on.
Until it is recognized that coercion is not a tool to be used by any individual in civilized society regardless of who signs the culprit’s paycheck, there is little in the document worth “returning” to.
The whole point of the Constitution was to protect the States and the people from Federal encroachment. The actual result was exactly the opposite. Lysander Spooner had it right.
http://www.thedailybell.com/1660/Tibor-Machan-How-to-Use-the-Constitution.html
My reply, also posted at the host site:
"Honest constitutional study and understanding would be needed. Only then would the imperative to pay heed to the Constitution come to something valuable, important."
This statement is a nice summary of the problems inherent with a call for a "return to the Constitution." Those "bent on pushing other people around" will always find new meanings, loopholes, etc., one building upon the other in a never ending circle of more control. They fought a war that resulted in the deaths of over 600,000 to prove this point. They have eliminated state appointment of senators. They have ensured all "checks and balances" are those held by members of the home team.
These games will always be so when the people are convinced that one entity has the legitimate authority to write the laws, interpret them, and provide enforcement and adjudication. Today, some longingly look to congress to be the force to return to the Constitution (whatever that means). Dream on.
Until it is recognized that coercion is not a tool to be used by any individual in civilized society regardless of who signs the culprit’s paycheck, there is little in the document worth “returning” to.
The whole point of the Constitution was to protect the States and the people from Federal encroachment. The actual result was exactly the opposite. Lysander Spooner had it right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)