Uhhhh, stop posting AC, then, dude. Seriously...my single-family home is water neutral and within a few years I'm hoping energy neutral. With all the *#$%%*@( trees it may well be a carbon sink, too.
I think you are conflating the concept of criminal and civil legal issues. There is a lot of debate in the libertarian sphere how to deal with the former with either minimal or no goverment, but in what universe do you think people would permit a known murderer (who wasn't a president, or police chief) to walk free, without social and economic consequences?
I thought raptors were making widespread comebacks? We've got eagles nesting here in northeast USA in populated areas. Hawks are exceedingly common. Osprey are doing better in the Chesapeake, I thought, as well.
You do, unless you have never used a credit account. No one actually puts a gun to your head to take out a loan, apply for a credit card, and so on. That makes it voluntary. The majority of the Mormon community lives without credit, as I understand it.
This scenario doesn't do much for the party injured, however. If your roofer caused your house to collapse, the fact that it's going to be a black mark in his book, and make it harder to get contracts going forward, doesn't help you keep the rain out of your living room.
Sure it does. You write damages into the contract, and/or require insurance as part of the contract. You can choose to only engage in contracts with insured parties. This isn't really that complicated, once you figure out the three or four standard clauses and things to check. And you'd use a super Angie's List type company to whitelist insurers and arbitrators for you.
Also, it's government that often *prevents* contract enforcement. Limited liability is a great example. One saying in anarcho circles is "a free society is a full liability society". There are lots of examples of companies and people getting out of contracts. Thus, this suggests the government is not effective in enforcing contracts.
Much as with credit ratings. All voluntary transactions include a mutually agreeable arbitrator in case of contract dispute. If you fail to fulfill your contract, the arbitrator marks it as such on your contract fulfillment rating. Fail to abide by the arbitrator's corrective directives, and your contract rating falls more severely, to the point you have to accept very bad terms on future contracts until you repair your rating. That's the anarcho-capitalist, totally government-free version of the solution.
again thanks for reading and any feedback is appreciated...maybe post on my page or contact me another way?
Thanks, but I'm not particularly interested. I have enough to keep me busy. FYI I navigated into Austrian economics as a result of really just believing that "The US Government will always be able to issue new debt to pay its old debt" was a defense of a ponzi scheme rather than a sustainable model. I found my way into full-blown libertarianism as a result of seeing the awful failures of Bush II's policies. Both these processes started in my 30s.
I'm not a troll. I've tried to maintain a fair bit more decorum than you have; I've tried to explain my arguments instead of being flippant and just repeating the same thing over and over. I think I'm probably the one being trolled. Whatever.
Just as in the private sector, when the government needs to borrow it issues bonds to lenders.
http://mises.org/daily/2006
Pretty sure that word "borrow", and the word "lenders", indicates a need to pay back the lender for the bonds.
Probably as good a place as any to get a handle on where I'm coming from. Murphy is no bozo, and is writing for Mises there; I cannot imagine you have any basis to flippantly dismiss his statements while maintaining your self-identification of Austrian.
Clearly I'm not getting my point across. The costs of carrying debt are going to force the USA into default, either directly, or through inflation. If you were truly an Austrian, as you claim on your homepage, you'd understand that. Continuing to say the same thing over and over without addressing the carrying costs of debt makes me suspect you really don't understand this topic, and choose to call yourself an Austrian for reasons other than it being true.
We also have at least four or five separate cultures, some of which get along, and some of which do not. Look at how well northern European and Scandinavian countries react to losing their respective cultural supermajorities over the next decade or so. Should be very interesting.
They don't know what to make of people who make decisions on things that have some absolutism involved, and frequently will not make "gut decisions" when the data is missing and they are asked to.
That's incredibly insightful. I never saw it that way before. Nonetheless, as an engineer, I've had to prove beyond any doubt that a certain problem existed to get business people to move on it. So I think there's another layer there: If the evidence goes against the businessperson's gut, it needs to be 100% iron-clad.
Yes, I think we are in agreement. I just thought your comment was awkwardly worded.
Yes, it was.
Um... just no. The press which follows the current administration (which means most of it) has been spouting pretty much the OPPOSITE of "classical liberalism", which today is called libertarian.
I know. I was being sarcastic. I'm pretty radically libertarian in my thinking, and was making a joke about the perversion of the meaning of "liberal". I definitely feel the progressives dominate in the "redefine words to make people think you're good" department. So much so that to simply state facts clearly is now a socially punishable offense.
anyone making decisions about US policy based on the notion that our 'national debt' is in any way related to personal 'debt' has no credibility in discussions like this
I've tried several times to explain that all debt involves a borrower and one or more lenders, and that cost of borrowing affect the solvency of the borrower (in this case the USA), and that there are real risks to even reduced purchasing of US bonds by just SOME of the lenders. That's the dynamic I see as identical in all debt/borrowing/lending.
You haven't made even a token effort to address the substance of those arguments. I checked out your blog and you seem like a smart enough guy, so it's a little disappointing to me that you simply define me as someone with no credibility, instead of show me why my statements are wrong. I'm guessing you could make an effort at it that would at least be interesting. Maybe you could try explaining why borrowing costs are irrelevant in sovereign debt. I don't know why that would be the case. Maybe you have another insight. But simply dismissing me isn't going to convince me of anything you're saying.
Further, since *all* purchases of US bonds directly impact the interest rate, and hence cost of carrying debt, it's not necessary to prove China is selling them at a loss. Even just a reduced purchase rate will increase our debt costs.
As to the international move away from the dollar, it's already been discussed at length. The World Bank and IMF don't have total power over what other players want to do. Like, for example, the BRICS:
We support the reform and improvement of the international monetary system, with a broad-based international reserve currency system providing stability and certainty. We welcome the discussion about the role of the SDR in the existing international monetary system including the composition of SDR's basket of currencies.
As I understand it, every great empire that ever was, was deeply in debt.
And the debt would get to a certain point, and the empire would fall. See Rome, Britain, Spain, the Byzantines (who lasted a REALLY long time, their problem was legitimate external pressure, they went about 1000 years on the gold standard, more or less). The financial center of the world was London before WWI. There will be another financial center of the world to take over from NYC. My money's on Beijing, for a while. Not sure when it will happen, but I'm guessing in my lifetime.
Slashdot Mirror
Uhhhh, stop posting AC, then, dude. Seriously...my single-family home is water neutral and within a few years I'm hoping energy neutral. With all the *#$%%*@( trees it may well be a carbon sink, too.
You mean like this thread? http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
I think you are conflating the concept of criminal and civil legal issues. There is a lot of debate in the libertarian sphere how to deal with the former with either minimal or no goverment, but in what universe do you think people would permit a known murderer (who wasn't a president, or police chief) to walk free, without social and economic consequences?
Send some down. Lots of AK people ship salmon to the continent. I'll pay you.
Informative, thank you. My knowledge was incomplete.
I thought raptors were making widespread comebacks? We've got eagles nesting here in northeast USA in populated areas. Hawks are exceedingly common. Osprey are doing better in the Chesapeake, I thought, as well.
You do, unless you have never used a credit account. No one actually puts a gun to your head to take out a loan, apply for a credit card, and so on. That makes it voluntary. The majority of the Mormon community lives without credit, as I understand it.
This scenario doesn't do much for the party injured, however. If your roofer caused your house to collapse, the fact that it's going to be a black mark in his book, and make it harder to get contracts going forward, doesn't help you keep the rain out of your living room.
Sure it does. You write damages into the contract, and/or require insurance as part of the contract. You can choose to only engage in contracts with insured parties. This isn't really that complicated, once you figure out the three or four standard clauses and things to check. And you'd use a super Angie's List type company to whitelist insurers and arbitrators for you.
This is different in the current system how?
Also, it's government that often *prevents* contract enforcement. Limited liability is a great example. One saying in anarcho circles is "a free society is a full liability society". There are lots of examples of companies and people getting out of contracts. Thus, this suggests the government is not effective in enforcing contracts.
Much as with credit ratings. All voluntary transactions include a mutually agreeable arbitrator in case of contract dispute. If you fail to fulfill your contract, the arbitrator marks it as such on your contract fulfillment rating. Fail to abide by the arbitrator's corrective directives, and your contract rating falls more severely, to the point you have to accept very bad terms on future contracts until you repair your rating. That's the anarcho-capitalist, totally government-free version of the solution.
hey thanks for having a look
You're welcome.
again thanks for reading and any feedback is appreciated...maybe post on my page or contact me another way?
Thanks, but I'm not particularly interested. I have enough to keep me busy. FYI I navigated into Austrian economics as a result of really just believing that "The US Government will always be able to issue new debt to pay its old debt" was a defense of a ponzi scheme rather than a sustainable model. I found my way into full-blown libertarianism as a result of seeing the awful failures of Bush II's policies. Both these processes started in my 30s.
Did I misunderstand this post on your homepage, where you self-identify as "Austrian"?
http://justinepperly.wordpress.com/2012/01/04/occupyhayek/
I'm not a troll. I've tried to maintain a fair bit more decorum than you have; I've tried to explain my arguments instead of being flippant and just repeating the same thing over and over. I think I'm probably the one being trolled. Whatever.
No. Get past your fear, embrace salt reactors, and use that "Waste" as fuel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
Here:
Just as in the private sector, when the government needs to borrow it issues bonds to lenders.
http://mises.org/daily/2006
Pretty sure that word "borrow", and the word "lenders", indicates a need to pay back the lender for the bonds.
Probably as good a place as any to get a handle on where I'm coming from. Murphy is no bozo, and is writing for Mises there; I cannot imagine you have any basis to flippantly dismiss his statements while maintaining your self-identification of Austrian.
Clearly I'm not getting my point across. The costs of carrying debt are going to force the USA into default, either directly, or through inflation. If you were truly an Austrian, as you claim on your homepage, you'd understand that. Continuing to say the same thing over and over without addressing the carrying costs of debt makes me suspect you really don't understand this topic, and choose to call yourself an Austrian for reasons other than it being true.
I could do without the insults. You do know that T-bills are supposed to be paid back, right?
Looks like you got modded "-1, disagree".
These downmodders are the same kinds of people who in 1900 thought the pound sterling would always be the world reserve currency.
We also have at least four or five separate cultures, some of which get along, and some of which do not. Look at how well northern European and Scandinavian countries react to losing their respective cultural supermajorities over the next decade or so. Should be very interesting.
They don't know what to make of people who make decisions on things that have some absolutism involved, and frequently will not make "gut decisions" when the data is missing and they are asked to.
That's incredibly insightful. I never saw it that way before. Nonetheless, as an engineer, I've had to prove beyond any doubt that a certain problem existed to get business people to move on it. So I think there's another layer there: If the evidence goes against the businessperson's gut, it needs to be 100% iron-clad.
Yes, I think we are in agreement. I just thought your comment was awkwardly worded.
Yes, it was.
Um... just no. The press which follows the current administration (which means most of it) has been spouting pretty much the OPPOSITE of "classical liberalism", which today is called libertarian.
I know. I was being sarcastic. I'm pretty radically libertarian in my thinking, and was making a joke about the perversion of the meaning of "liberal". I definitely feel the progressives dominate in the "redefine words to make people think you're good" department. So much so that to simply state facts clearly is now a socially punishable offense.
anyone making decisions about US policy based on the notion that our 'national debt' is in any way related to personal 'debt' has no credibility in discussions like this
I've tried several times to explain that all debt involves a borrower and one or more lenders, and that cost of borrowing affect the solvency of the borrower (in this case the USA), and that there are real risks to even reduced purchasing of US bonds by just SOME of the lenders. That's the dynamic I see as identical in all debt/borrowing/lending.
You haven't made even a token effort to address the substance of those arguments. I checked out your blog and you seem like a smart enough guy, so it's a little disappointing to me that you simply define me as someone with no credibility, instead of show me why my statements are wrong. I'm guessing you could make an effort at it that would at least be interesting. Maybe you could try explaining why borrowing costs are irrelevant in sovereign debt. I don't know why that would be the case. Maybe you have another insight. But simply dismissing me isn't going to convince me of anything you're saying.
Further, since *all* purchases of US bonds directly impact the interest rate, and hence cost of carrying debt, it's not necessary to prove China is selling them at a loss. Even just a reduced purchase rate will increase our debt costs.
You didn't address unfunded liabilities at all.
As to the international move away from the dollar, it's already been discussed at length. The World Bank and IMF don't have total power over what other players want to do. Like, for example, the BRICS:
We support the reform and improvement of the international monetary system, with a broad-based international reserve currency system providing stability and certainty. We welcome the discussion about the role of the SDR in the existing international monetary system including the composition of SDR's basket of currencies.
http://www.bjreview.com.cn/document/txt/2013-04/08/content_532640_2.htm
You speak of US hegemony as though it's a constant. It isn't.
As I understand it, every great empire that ever was, was deeply in debt.
And the debt would get to a certain point, and the empire would fall. See Rome, Britain, Spain, the Byzantines (who lasted a REALLY long time, their problem was legitimate external pressure, they went about 1000 years on the gold standard, more or less). The financial center of the world was London before WWI. There will be another financial center of the world to take over from NYC. My money's on Beijing, for a while. Not sure when it will happen, but I'm guessing in my lifetime.