01 Oct 2014

Potpourri

Potpourri 56 Comments

==> I wish Mises happy birthday.

==> In this post (and comments) David R. Henderson seems to agree with Jeffrey Rogers Hummel that the Fed’s ability to control interest rates is very exaggerated. Then you’ve got Larry Summers criticizing the Treasury for offsetting the Fed’s moves to cut long-term interest rates. Are David and Jeffrey saying Summers, Bernanke, and 75% of the investors are totally wrong for thinking the Fed can influence rates by, say, adding $2 trillion in bonds to its balance sheet? If the Fed announces, “We are going to raise the fed funds rate to 0.75% in February,” are David and Jeffrey saying they will fail? (I’m not being sarcastic, I am honestly trying to understand what their position is.)

==> Incidentally, the best line from that Summers story: “[Cummings] recounted the story of President Johnson’s summoning the Fed’s chairman, William McChesney Martin, to his Texas ranch, slamming him against the wall and telling him, “Martin, my boys are dying in Vietnam, and you won’t print the money I need.””

==> Can’t remember if I posted this? Dan McCarthy, after further review, says the invasion of Normandy stands.

==> Yet more evidence that the Canadian fiscal turnaround in the 1990s did NOT rely on loose money.

==> Joe Salerno on the bubble economy.

56 Responses to “Potpourri”

  1. rob says:

    Totally off topic but as I’m banned from his site and can’t ask him directly, has anyone got any clue what Gene is getting at in this post ?

    http://gene-callahan.blogspot.com/2014/10/hey-libertarians-individual-you-oppose.html

    Is it only me that thinks that Gene is losing it ?

    • James says:

      Gene’s title is clear enough: “The [concept of the] individual you oppose to the state was a creation of the state.”

      I suppose the appropriate response is: “So you claim. And therefore what?”

    • Andrew_FL says:

      It strikes me as a failure to understand that the concept of an individual is not something that can be created by anyone. It’s something that exists whether people “think of themselves” that way or not.

      Also quoting someone as apparently able to read the minds of pre-state man, is unconvincing.

      • Gene Callahan says:

        Sure, concepts cannot be created by anyone!

      • Gene Callahan says:

        And we don’t have to “read the minds” of earlier people to know that my post is true: we can actually engage in historical research!

        • K.P. says:

          Your post is too vague to be true or false, what is the “modern individual”?

          • S.C. says:

            The “modern individual” is the type of person who exhibits welfare-maximizing behavior and thinks of himself as unconnected to the social setting they are in. This is extremely common in first world nations and you’ll be hard pressed to find it in agrarian societies.

            • Ben B says:

              But based on that definition then, your disconnected modern individual could be a product of the mass accumulation of wealth and not necessarily the state.

              I know, next your going to tell me that the accumulation of wealth is only possible because of the state.

              It could also be that many individuals are “disconnected wealth maximizers” because of the state. It’s the state that is most notorious for breaking the natural social bonds between individuals.

              • S.C. says:

                It’s the state that is most notorious for breaking the natural social bonds between individuals.

                Really? Mind showing us some evidence for that proposition? Where do social norms fit in? Peer pressure, drugs, etc.?

              • Bob Roddis says:

                These historical arguments that government saved civilization confuse the protection that government might bring with the violations of the NAP that governments engage in. I do not believe you need the latter to have the former.

              • S.C. says:

                These historical arguments that government saved civilization confuse the protection that government might bring with the violations of the NAP that governments engage in..

                Who is to say those are acts of “aggression”? Maybe you are the one who is confusing things here, Roddis.

              • Bob Roddis says:

                S.C.: If you are driven to a position of attacking (via hair-splitting) well understood notions of private property, personal integrity/safety and rules against trespass and assaultive behavior, go for it.

              • S.C. says:

                …well understood notions of private property…

                Well understood?! It’s your conception of property that idiosyncratic, buddy.

              • Major.Freedom says:

                S.C.:

                Civilian to civilian private property rights is not “idiosyncratic.”

                It is a common, everyday ethic that almost everyone believes to be moral and just.

                Bob just makes the addition of expanding it to the production and distribution of protection and security, instead of stopping short at that for some silly reason or another.

              • Bob Roddis says:

                BATTERY—Elements:

                1. The ∆ must commit a harmful or OFFENSIVE contact,
                2. The contact must be with the π’s PERSON, and
                3. ∆’s INTENT

              • S.C. says:

                It is a common, everyday ethic that almost everyone believes to be moral and just.

                No, you lot nuttily think every crime imaginable is contained within the concept, that all human interaction can be reduced to contracts, and that “exclusive use” means “any use”. You’re not “expanding” it to anything, you’re just throwing vigilantism into the mix.

              • Major.Freedom says:

                S.C.:

                “No, you lot nuttily think every crime imaginable is contained within the concept”

                Every definition of crime imaginable is contained with a concept.

                Sorry, that’s not a valid criticism.

                “that all human interaction can be reduced to contracts”

                No, it holds that only moral and ethical “human interaction” is peaceful interaction, which includes respecting each other’s persons and property.

                The concepts of agreement, consent, voluntary, etc, these are all “contracts”.

                What, did you believe that “human interaction” should and ought include initiations of force and contract violations?

                “and that “exclusive use” means “any use”.”

                No, it does not include use that is itself a violation of other people’s property rights. So “any use” is inaccurate.

                “You’re not “expanding” it to anything, you’re just throwing vigilantism into the mix.”

                No, we’re expanding freedom of association to include soliciting protection and security. That it is a contradiction to seek protection against violations of property rights by way of threatening people with violence if they don’t hire you for protection.

              • S.C. says:

                Every definition of crime imaginable is contained with a concept.

                Are you really this dense? By “the concept” I meant “the concept of property”.

                The concepts of agreement, consent, voluntary, etc, these are all “contracts”.

                LOL. No, they’re not. Not by any reasonable definition of the term. Marriage isn’t a contract, child custody isn’t a matter of contract, consent isn’t contractual, land covenants aren’t contracts, checks aren’t contracts, sales aren’t contracts, and so forth. You fail to even have a rudimentary understanding of the basics of law.

                What, did you believe that “human interaction” should and ought include initiations of force and contract violations?

                You really are this dense.

                No, it does not include use that is itself a violation of other people’s property rights. So “any use” is inaccurate.

                You’re simply expanding “violation of property rights” to mean anything that you’re against.

                No, we’re expanding freedom of association to include soliciting protection and security. That it is a contradiction to seek protection against violations of property rights by way of threatening people with violence if they don’t hire you for protection.

                So says you. Government isn’t looking for you to “hire it”. You are not its “customer”. You’re not allowed to set up “private defense agencies” because justice and law cannot be “privatized”.

              • Major.Freedom says:

                S.C.:

                “Are you really this dense?”

                Not a relevant argument.

                “By “the concept” I meant “the concept of property”.”

                I know what you meant. My response was that EVERY definition of crime is “contained” in a concept.

                The concept I choose is property.

                “The concepts of agreement, consent, voluntary, etc, these are all “contracts”.”

                “LOL. No, they’re not. Not by any reasonable definition of the term.”

                LOL, yes, they are. By every reasonable definition of the term.

                “Marriage isn’t a contract”

                Yes it is.

                “child custody isn’t a matter of contract”

                Yes, that is as well.

                “consent isn’t contractual”

                Consent is very much contractual.

                “land covenants aren’t contracts”

                Yes, they are.

                “checks aren’t contracts”

                Those are contracts too.

                “sales aren’t contracts”

                A sale is very much a contract.

                “and so forth.”

                Yes, and so forth. All agreements are contracts.

                “You fail to even have a rudimentary understanding of the basics of law.”

                You fail to even have a rudimentary understanding of the meaning of contract.

                Contracts are not what you believe they are. What you have in mind is a TYPE of contract.

                “What, did you believe that “human interaction” should and ought include initiations of force and contract violations?”

                “You really are this dense.”

                Also not a relevant argument.

                “No, it does not include use that is itself a violation of other people’s property rights. So “any use” is inaccurate.”

                “You’re simply expanding “violation of property rights” to mean anything that you’re against.”

                No, I am not. I am against many things, but I do not define those things as violations of property rights. For example, I am against heroin use, unprotected sex with strangers, and certain sports teams. But I do not consider people taking heroin, or strangers having unprotected sex, and so on, as violations of property rights.

                “No, we’re expanding freedom of association to include soliciting protection and security.”

                “That it is a contradiction to seek protection against violations of property rights by way of threatening people with violence if they don’t hire you for protection.”

                “So says you.”

                Super insightful response. OK. Anything you say from now on: So says you. How thought provoking and educational.

                “Government isn’t looking for you to “hire it”.”

                That is precisely what makes it coercive, violent, and an aggressor against peace.

                “You are not its “customer”.”

                So says you.

                “You’re not allowed to set up “private defense agencies” because justice and law cannot be “privatized”.”

                That is exactly what anarcho-capitalism seeks to advance to.

                You’re not making any substantive rebuttal by merely telling me what a government agent believes, or what its sheep supporters believe.

            • K.P. says:

              Well then, that “modern individual” is not a libertarian concept. At least not a particularly common one. You might be able to find it in certain strands, but figureheads like Benjamin Tucker completely agreed with your statement.

              “That society is a concrete organism the Anarchists do not deny; on the contrary they insist upon it. They know that it’s life is inseparable from the lives of individuals; that it is impossible to destroy one without destroying the other. But, though society cannot be destroyed, it can be greatly hampered and impeded in its operations, much to the disadvantage of the individuals composing it, and it meets its chief impediment in the State.”

              This just boils down to the state/society distinction.

              • S.C. says:

                Well then, that “modern individual” is not a libertarian concept.

                Yes, it most certainly is. Libertarianism has an atomic individualism at its core. This naturally leads to different conceptions of freedom, “aggression”, etc.

                “That society is a concrete organism the Anarchists do not deny; on the contrary they insist upon it. They know that it’s life is inseparable from the lives of individuals; that it is impossible to destroy one without destroying the other. But, though society cannot be destroyed, it can be greatly hampered and impeded in its operations, much to the disadvantage of the individuals composing it, and it meets its chief impediment in the State.”

                Yes, yes, yes. I’ve heard it all before.

                This just boils down to the state/society distinction.

                No such distinction exists. In the many examples of “statelessness” I’ve seen cited by libertarians, not one of them differs in any of the ways they suggest. A society has rules and it will enforce those rules. You will not find yourself standing against “the state” in alliance with society. No, you stand in opposition to the rest of society.

              • K.P. says:

                “Yes, it most certainly is. Libertarianism has an atomic individualism at its core. This naturally leads to different conceptions of freedom, “aggression”, etc”

                No, in fact, you can read Roderick Long and other libertarians explicitly reject atomic individualism. And Block saying individualism isn’t necessary at all! You might be thinking of egoism here.

                “No such distinction exists. In the many examples of “statelessness” I’ve seen cited by libertarians, not one of them differs in any of the ways they suggest. A society has rules and it will enforce those rules.”

                You and I have had this discussion already, again libertarians aren’t against rules. There is are obvious differences, you just don’t find them substantial, libertarians do.

              • S.C. says:

                No, in fact, you can read Roderick Long and other libertarians explicitly reject atomic individualism. And Block saying individualism isn’t necessary at all! You might be thinking of egoism here.

                They may think that, but they are wrong. They still hold to atomic individualism, even if only implicitly.

              • K.P. says:

                “They may think that, but they are wrong. They still hold to atomic individualism, even if only implicitly.”

                Just wave those hands, Samson. Handwave the problems away with strings of empty words.

              • Major.Freedom says:

                S.C.

                “Libertarianism has an atomic individualism at its core. ”

                You mean we’re NUCYULAR?

      • S.C. says:

        It’s something that exists whether people “think of themselves” that way or not.

        Kind of like law and justice!

    • Major.Freedom says:

      Gene is saying that rape victims feeling betrayed and violated, and then fighting for their right to be free from violance, could not have happened without rapists raping people, so we should thank the rapists for being the sole causal factor in explaining why people have the delusion that their bodies should be free from initiations of force.

      Deeper, he is claiming the old heretical version of orthodox Christianity (as well as Hegelianism after) that explains evil in the universe not as unnecessary or contingent, but as a necessary and freedom encouraging/creating phenomena where humanity returns to its true self after going through the trials and tribulations of history.

      Gene is just lost in what Daniel Klein calls “The People’s Romance”, and he is trying to find meaning and cosmic justification for those silly gangs writ large.

      • Bob Murphy says:

        Gene is saying that rape victims feeling betrayed and violated, and then fighting for their right to be free from violance, could not have happened without rapists raping people, so we should thank the rapists for being the sole causal factor in explaining why people have the delusion that their bodies should be free from initiations of force.

        Whoa! He’s gonna walk that back in a future post I bet!

        • Major.Freedom says:

          Did you know that people’s ideas of wanting to be free from rape is positively correlated with rape?

          Don’t deny history! Rape has clearly caused the idea that refraining from rape is the moral and just thing to do. Just ask all the rapist authors who have no bias. They’ll tell you.

          And please don’t ask me if a dictator killing all children under the age of 15 around the world is morally wrong. It’s never happened yet, so I have no idea how to form any conception that doing so is wrong, and that everyone younger than 15 years old should be free from such violence. It has to actually happen, and then everyone will start to learn that young people the world over have individual rights.

      • Gene Callahan says:

        Major, that is the stupidest thing you have ever written, and that is saying something!

        • Major.Freedom says:

          Gene, that was actually just the easiest way to demolish your ridiculous argument.

          • Major.Freedom says:

            Yeah, I said demolish. Not really my style, but meh.

    • Gene Callahan says:

      “Individualism also has been thought to distinguish modern Western societies from premodern and non-Western ones…”
      — Encyclopedia Britannica
      Apparently the Encyclopaedia Britannica is also “losing it” Rob

      • rob says:

        The Encyclopedia Britannica is saying that individualism is thought by some to be a differentiating feature on western societies.

        I’m not sure I agree with or fully understand that view, but its a lot less extreme than your statement that the individual is a creation of the state.

        The “idea of the individual” may have played a role in the way modern states have evolved, but that is a very different thing indeed.

        • K.P. says:

          His post switches from “creation of” to “mutually supporting”

          • rob says:

            Some quotes from Genes “clarifying” post.

            http://gene-callahan.blogspot.com/

            Talking about social roles in the middle ages:

            “If one was a peasant, one did not even really contemplate being something other than a peasant”

            ” If I was the first son of a duke, I was going to become a duke, and I would live the way other dukes lived. My choices would be along the lines of “Shall I fight with Duke A, or with Duke B?” If I was the second son, I had a little more flexibility: I might become a bishop or an officer in the army.”

            And (talking about the rights of trans-sexuals)

            “But the state has gradually broken down the ability of other social groupings to effectively banish such a person to the wilderness”

            I’m honestly not sure if Gene is having a laugh here or really believes what he is writing. I hope its the former, but I suspect its the latter.

            • Bob Murphy says:

              Hey guys,

              I think it’s kind of creepy when there’s a huddle in the comments over at Gene’s blog, and they pass notes at lunch talking about how awful the people at this blog are.

              So, maybe we can class it up and not do the same.

              • rob says:

                Well, I’m banned from Gene’s blog so I can’t comment there.

                But point taken – I will desist.

              • Bob Murphy says:

                I understand a guy just needs a place to vent about statists, but still…

            • K.P. says:

              For the most part Gene is correct. The modern state is undermining more traditional social order(s), to what extent is certainly debatable though.

              In my opinion, he only erred in saying it was due to “libertarian” influence.

      • Major.Freedom says:

        Individualism came into the fore with philosophical enlightenment in various locations and communities throughout history.

        Individualism in Britain and the US for example did not arise in line with the rise of statism. States existed before then. It was the ideas.

        Individualism is in fact incompatible with statism.

  2. Enopoletus Harding says:

    Can’t remember if I posted this

    Yeah, you posted this already.

  3. Major.Freedom says:

    “Had Canada in 1997 plunged into a terrible recession with unemployment shooting back up to 12%, we can be quite certain Paul Krugman would have said, “I told you so! What did you think would happen amidst such budget cuts during a weak economy?!” But since the economy kept improving, instead the Keynesians must point to “offsetting monetary policy” that doesn’t actually exist.”

    Yup, and it gets worse. Even if at some point they are convinced that there was not sufficient “monetary offset”, then we would be told (I have been told this actually) that the reason Canada did not go into recession after the budget tightening, is because private investment and spending picked up sufficiently to prevent a large enough fall in ” aggregate

    • LK says:

      “But since the economy kept improving, instead the Keynesians must point to “offsetting monetary policy” that doesn’t actually exist.””

      The looser monetary policy via lower interest rates did exist.

      Furthermore, they would say that domestic consumption or private investment growth or foreign demand for export growth — or combination of 2 or all 3 — provided the AD to sustain GDP growth, in the face of cuts to G. Duh.

      • Major.Freedom says:

        Lower rates do NOT necessarily imply “looser money”.

      • Major.Freedom says:

        If private investment and consumption can increase in the face of fiscal retrenchment and no monetary loosening, then bye bye every Keynesian policy, because it relies on claiming to be able to predict that the economy will slump if fiscal policy declines without offsetting central bank loosening, and vice versa.

        I am not claiming that I personally believe that the events in Canada are what refutes Keynesianism and Monetarism. They are refuted on the very grounds they themselves are based on: a priori.

        But their attempts to appear empirically grounded, doesn’t even work either because the empirical facts don’t gel with the predictions.

        LK, a main reason why you believe in Keynesianism is because you believe that the private sector cannot do what the Canadian private sector did. To meekly and awkwardly retreat to “B-b-but private demand rose so the theory of aggregate demand is not challenged” is an abandonment of the Keynesian/Monetarist norms predicated on predicting the private sector can’t do what in the case of Canada it did do.

        If private sector expansion can take place without fiscal or monetary expansion, what was the point of them again?

        • LK says:

          “If private investment and consumption can increase in the face of fiscal retrenchment and no monetary loosening, then bye bye every Keynesian policy, because it relies on claiming to be able to predict that the economy will slump if fiscal policy declines without offsetting central bank loosening, and vice versa.”

          False. Keynesian theory would say that it is what will usually happen, not that it will happen in every case.

          • Major.Freedom says:

            No, Keynesian theory would not say that. Keynesian theory is predictive, and even if lip service is paid to an outcome “usually” happening, the actual advocacy is as if it would happen every single time.

        • LK says:

          The empirical evidence shows clearly that government fiscal and monetary contraction generally results in recession, e.g.:

          – Greece, Ireland, the Baltic states after 2008
          – Thatcher’s fiscal and monetary contraction in the UK 1979-1981
          – Carter’s fiscal and monetary contraction 1979-1980
          – the Roosevelt recession 1937-1938

          and the list goes on and on.

          • LK says:

            More instances:

            – South Korea, Indonesia, and Thailand all pursued austerity in 1997-1998 under IMF advice. They all plunged into recession.

          • Bob Roddis says:

            Since Keynesians can never be honest, they point to situations where “stimulus” was cut back, not where laissez faire and sound money were re-established.

            If you want a list of reasons why Keynesianism is baseless, read this Pilkington paper.

            http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2014/10/philip-pilkington-on-natural-rate-of.html

            I plan a critique of it somewhere other than in these comments.

    • Major.Freedom says:

      …demand.”

      This of course totally falsifies Keynesian predictions, and it also exposes its ex post facto rationalization framework. By explaining things after the fact that way, they invariably are conceding that they never have any justification to advocate for any government intervention, because BEFORE and DURING the government fiscal pullback, they cannot claim that the central bank has to loosen money or else, and if the central bank pulls back they cannot say that the Treasury has to expand or else.

      Congrats Murphy. You have explained quite well that there is never any justification IN THE PRESENT for governments to either borrow and spend more, or print and spend more, when either or both fiscal and monetary policies contract.

      The last ditch of course is for Keynesians to say something like “Ultimately it is aggregate demand, and the case of Canada does not refute this.” Quite right, but then we are in a new playground, a new set of economic arguments, where the counter theory that aggregate demand rose alongside real investment and production rising, but not in a causal manner where more aggregate demand caused the rise in investment and production. But rather, a retrenchment in government activity as such allowed for more private activity as such.

      Keynesianism and Monetarism have long ago been refuted intellectually, but they cling to false claims about history in a last ditch attempt to salvage their ideologies.

  4. Gamble says:

    Not sure what it means when Yahoo is running Krugman Fed/inflation stories? Maybe they are simply looking for online traffic?

    Well anyways, seems article wants inflationist to admit they had it all wrong. Bob you first, lol.

    Inflation occurred the instant the unwanted money was created. The ensuing price increases are there, if you look. CPI, Chained CPI, and other statist invention tell me nothing. Pure propaganda.

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/well-just-embarrassing-fed-haters-150538633.html

  5. Major.Freedom says:

    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/china/Hong-Kong-leaders-daughter-creates-controversy-with-Facebook-post/articleshow/44115995.cms

    Don’t worry folks! The spending was “economically stimulative”. The more money taxpayers have, and the less real wealth they have, the better off they’ll be.

    • Bob Roddis says:

      “The necklace on my profile pic is not a dog collar, silly!!!” she said. “This is actually a beautiful necklace bought at Lane Crawford (yes – funded by all you HK taxpayers!! So are all my beautiful shoes and dresses and clutches!! Thank you so much!!!!)”.

      Chai Yan hit out at those taunting her saying, “Actually maybe I shouldn’t say ‘all you’- since most of you here are probably unemployed hence all this time obsessed with bombarding me with messages”. She later said, “It’s ok, your mother still loves you”.

Leave a Reply to Major.Freedom

Cancel Reply