Category: Economics, Finance, and Political Economy

  • Why And How Do Free Markets Work?

    People come into proximity with one another to decrease opportunity costs (concentrate opportunities and decrease the cost of each opportunity). This is the reason productivity increases with population density: we save time and expense, increase the division of knowledge and labor, and increase the velocity of trades, so we make the cost of pursuing opportunities cheaper.

    But when we come into proximity and decrease the costs of opportunities, we also increase the number of competitors both for consumption of goods, services, and information, and for the production of goods, services, and information.

    So the only means of pursuing those opportunities is to reduce the cost or improve the product, service, or information. Innovators force all other producers to improve the cost and quality and diversity of their products. Unfortunately it is usually much harder to improve the quality of labor, than it is to improve goods, services, and information.

    This cycle of competition and innovation keeps prices down and quality up, at the cost of forcing everyone to work harder, think harder, and spend more time working, leaving some people by the wayside because they cannot adapt themselves or their goods, services, or information fast enough to serve the interests of buyers given the available competition.

    A free market refers to the territorial, political, and juridical conditions under which anyone can engage in the negotiation and voluntary trade of attention, effort, labor, goods, services, information, promises and obligations, assuming that which he trades was obtained by him by the same means.

    Where one of the following sets of conditions applies:

    The government does not interfere with prices or conditions of the transaction and only enforces common laws of contract and tort. (this is an ok thing)

    or

    The government does not interfere with prices conditions of the transactions, but forces all parties to warranty for performance, and against fraud. (This is better thing)

    or

    The government does not interfere with prices conditions of the transactions, but forces all parties to warranty for performance, for fully informed consent, and against fraud, and that the exchange is reciprocally productive (This is an even better thing)

    or

    The government does not interfere with prices, conditions of the transactions, forces involuntary warranties for performance and fully informed consent, and against fraud, and that the exchange is reciprocally productive, but prevents externalization of costs to the commons by the socialization of losses, the privatization of commons, or the consumption of a common resource without compensation to the polity. (an even better thing.)

    or

    The government does not interfere with prices, conditions of the transactions, forces involuntary warranties for performance and fully informed consent, and against fraud, and that the exchange is reciprocally productive, but prevents externalization of costs to the commons by the socialization of losses, the privatization of commons, or the consumption of a common resource without compensation to the polity, and that no conspiracy exists to create an artificial shortage in order to increase prices without increasing the content of the product, service, or good (an even better thing.)

    A free market, may describe any of those different conditions. But only the last of those, I have listed is in fact a MORAL free market.

    Free markets are too often used as an excuse to conduct parasitism rather than productivity, under the ruse of moral pretense.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine

    https://www.quora.com/Why-and-how-do-free-markets-work

  • Why Is It Called The Free Market When The Poor Have No Choice But To Sell Their Labor So They Don’t Starve?

    Because that’s a free market. That is all a free market promises: you will not be legally or institutionally denied access, nor legally nor institutionally granted privilege.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-is-it-called-the-free-market-when-the-poor-have-no-choice-but-to-sell-their-labor-so-they-dont-starve

  • Why Is It Called The Free Market When The Poor Have No Choice But To Sell Their Labor So They Don’t Starve?

    Because that’s a free market. That is all a free market promises: you will not be legally or institutionally denied access, nor legally nor institutionally granted privilege.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-is-it-called-the-free-market-when-the-poor-have-no-choice-but-to-sell-their-labor-so-they-dont-starve

  • What Are Some Criticisms Of The Austrian School Of Economic Thought?

    It depends upon which Austrian school you’re asking about.

    1) the Christian Austrians, including Menger and the Marginalists whose work has been fully integrated into mainstream economics with the exception of their certainty of the influence of the business cycle.

    or

    2) the Jewish Austrians, including Mises alone, and perhaps Rothbard, who stumbled upon Operationalism in economics, but instead of comprehending that a truthful proposition must be BOTH externally correspondent, and existentially possible to construct via a series of rationally testable operations, attempted to somehow conflate Jewish Law, and Mathematical Logic and instead, created the pseudoscience of ‘praxeology’ under which they claim all economics must be produced by a sequence of operations.

    This left Mises respected but a laughing stock without a position. Unfortunately he did not understand what he had stumbled upon, and he could have reformed economics. But he failed. He failed because he was committed to his dogma, and committed to his error.

    The only reason we discuss mises at all is because the Mises Institute copied the techniques of the marxists of (a) heaping undue praise, (b) creating long lists of straw man arguments by which to criticize empirical science but never producing anything more than amateurish justificationary pseudo-scientific arguments, (c) using the new medium of the internet as an inexpensive propaganda device, (d) marketing to the well intentioned fools (the young males), and entrepreneurs who, because of their success in the market, overrate their comprehension of political economy.

    So why doesn’t anyone take ‘Austrian Economics’ seriously? They do. They take mengerian economics seriously: marginalism. They take the austrian project seriously: an attempt to develop a social science of political economy by which we remove obstacles to cooperation – NOT as the chicago school has done, a science of MONETARY economy, to insure against shocks to cooperation, and NOT as the saltwater (Jewish Left) school has done, which is a science of the maximum interference that is possible such that the maximum consumption is pursued, so that the maximum capital is moving, and the minimum capital is held in reserve against the most severe of shocks.

    If you understand these few paragraphs you know more about the problems of the economics profession than most professors will ever dream of.

    https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-criticisms-of-the-Austrian-school-of-economic-thought

  • What Are Some Criticisms Of The Austrian School Of Economic Thought?

    It depends upon which Austrian school you’re asking about.

    1) the Christian Austrians, including Menger and the Marginalists whose work has been fully integrated into mainstream economics with the exception of their certainty of the influence of the business cycle.

    or

    2) the Jewish Austrians, including Mises alone, and perhaps Rothbard, who stumbled upon Operationalism in economics, but instead of comprehending that a truthful proposition must be BOTH externally correspondent, and existentially possible to construct via a series of rationally testable operations, attempted to somehow conflate Jewish Law, and Mathematical Logic and instead, created the pseudoscience of ‘praxeology’ under which they claim all economics must be produced by a sequence of operations.

    This left Mises respected but a laughing stock without a position. Unfortunately he did not understand what he had stumbled upon, and he could have reformed economics. But he failed. He failed because he was committed to his dogma, and committed to his error.

    The only reason we discuss mises at all is because the Mises Institute copied the techniques of the marxists of (a) heaping undue praise, (b) creating long lists of straw man arguments by which to criticize empirical science but never producing anything more than amateurish justificationary pseudo-scientific arguments, (c) using the new medium of the internet as an inexpensive propaganda device, (d) marketing to the well intentioned fools (the young males), and entrepreneurs who, because of their success in the market, overrate their comprehension of political economy.

    So why doesn’t anyone take ‘Austrian Economics’ seriously? They do. They take mengerian economics seriously: marginalism. They take the austrian project seriously: an attempt to develop a social science of political economy by which we remove obstacles to cooperation – NOT as the chicago school has done, a science of MONETARY economy, to insure against shocks to cooperation, and NOT as the saltwater (Jewish Left) school has done, which is a science of the maximum interference that is possible such that the maximum consumption is pursued, so that the maximum capital is moving, and the minimum capital is held in reserve against the most severe of shocks.

    If you understand these few paragraphs you know more about the problems of the economics profession than most professors will ever dream of.

    https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-criticisms-of-the-Austrian-school-of-economic-thought

  • Because that’s simply true. What universities teach marxist economics?

    Because that’s simply true. What universities teach marxist economics?


    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-24 18:40:19 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/867450201409302530

    Reply addressees: @EasternMarxist

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/867449862912176130


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/867449862912176130

  • I mean, why do you think marx stopped writing when he read the marginalists? He

    I mean, why do you think marx stopped writing when he read the marginalists? He realized he was wrong, but needed money from Engels to live.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-24 18:39:44 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/867450056508661760

    Reply addressees: @EasternMarxist

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/867449105513148417


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/867449105513148417

  • I mean, only an imbecile walks around claiming he’s a marxist or that there is a

    I mean, only an imbecile walks around claiming he’s a marxist or that there is any basis to marxist econ.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-24 18:39:10 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/867449915181592576

    Reply addressees: @EasternMarxist

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/867449105513148417


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/867449105513148417

  • a price is not a value that is a lie. I’ve disabused you of that lie repeatedly

    a price is not a value that is a lie. I’ve disabused you of that lie repeatedly now.Prices are imputed so aside from shocks, ratios remain.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-24 18:28:40 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/867447270454812672

    Reply addressees: @EasternMarxist

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/867446403550859264


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/867446403550859264

  • you make zero arguments at all. Which is why marxism is taught as fantasy litera

    you make zero arguments at all. Which is why marxism is taught as fantasy literature, not economics, or politics.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-24 18:26:43 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/867446778370682883

    Reply addressees: @EasternMarxist

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/867445944459169792


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/867445944459169792