Tuesday, September 11, 2012

Krugman: Break Windows, Help the Economy

OK, so Paul Krugman has decided to be a political shill for Barack Obama, but in today's blog post, he decides to abandon economics all together. Just as Larry Kudlow, Timothy Noah and others jettisoned economic logic for a bizarre "Broken Windows Theory" when they claimed that the 9/11 attacks would be good for the economy,  Krugman (fittingly on September 11) makes a similar claim about the iPhone 5.

Krugman writes:

There’s been some buzz about a report suggesting that the iPhone 5 could, all by itself, give a significant boost to the US economy. I can’t judge how plausible the sales estimates are; but it’s worth pointing out how the economic logic of this suggestion relates to the larger picture.
The key point is that the optimism about the iPhone’s effects has nothing (or at any rate not much) to do with the presumed quality of the phone, and the ways in which it might make us happier or more productive. Instead, the immediate gains would come from the way the new phone would get people to junk their old phones and replace them.
In other words, if you believe that the iPhone really might give the economy a big boost, you have — whether you realize it or not — bought into a version of the “broken windows” theory, in which destroying some capital can actually be a good thing under depression conditions
Of course, it’s nice that the reason we’re junking old capital is to make room for something better, not just for the hell of it. But you know what would also be nice? Building useful stuff like infrastructure employing labor and cash that would otherwise sit idle.
First, it is obvious that Krugman has not a clue about the creation of wealth and he certainly knows nothing about capital. Keynesians believe that the real benefit of capital spending is, well, spending, and Krugman does nothing to dispel that false notion in this post.

Second, the idea that the money spent on buying new iPhones would provide a "significant boost" to the economy is to forget what Keynesians and Krugman always forget: opportunity cost. If someone purchases an iPhone, then that means the person cannot purchase something else. The presence of new iPhones does not mean that suddenly everyone has new reserves with which to spend new money.

Now, Krugman seems at best to give a backhanded endorsement of the "broken windows theory," but nonetheless this "theory" is pure Keynesianism. As every Austrian knows, it is not even the "broken windows theory," but rather the "broken windows fallacy." The concept comes from Frederic Bastiat in his famous "That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen," the first chapter entitled, "The Broken Window."

Defenders of Krugman will point to the last paragraph in the quote in which he essentially calls for more public works spending, but one needs to remember that Krugman sees public works projects as important not because of the roads and bridges that will make transportation more reliable, but because these projects are transmitters of spending via individual incomes.

He has it backward. What we produce is what permits us to consume. Krugman believes that all it takes is for someone to have cash in his hand, and the goods magically appear on the shelves. It might work that way in Wonderland, but not in a real economy.

(Thanks to Scott Ellis for showing me Krugman's post)

47 comments:

Lord Keynes said...

"Defenders of Krugman will point to the last paragraph in the quote in which he essentially calls for more public works spending, but one needs to remember that Krugman sees public works projects as important not because of the roads and bridges that will make transportation more reliable, but because these projects are transmitters of spending via individual incomes."

The two are reasons are in fact perfectly compatible.

And if you think Krugman values public infrastructure spending solely because it is some kind of spending, without consideration of its social and economic value, then you're clearly (1) deluded, (2) an outright liar or (3) a comedian.

smirk said...

"And if you think Krugman values public infrastructure spending solely because it is some kind of spending, without consideration of its social and economic value, then you're clearly (1) deluded, (2) an outright liar or (3) a comedian."

...You forgot (4) "correct".

Krugman's blog is the "conscience of a liberal", so it's entirely his purview that political/social concerns factor into his economic pronouncements, but that only makes Mr. Anderson's diagnosis more valid.

The idea is to concentrate on what's purely economic, and indeed the economic instigator. Krugman has always maintained that the most important part of the picture is the spending and demand, with all other economic windfalls coming as a feedback.

So then, the infrastructure spending is itself the most important economic value. The fact that it improves commerce in general is a side-effect that follows.

Stitch it together with his promotion of an alien invasion to jumpstart the economy, or the digging/filling of holes.

He may not like the confidence fairy, but he seems perfectly fine with demand-generating fairies who by mere whisperings regarding inflation can keep whole economies in balance.

Zachriel said...

smirk: ...You forgot (4) "correct".

Krugman: Infrastructure Spending Yields Results

Krugman: both education and infrastructure are investments in America’s future

Lord Keynes: you're clearly (1) deluded, (2) an outright liar or (3) a comedian.

We're rooting for comedian, but it's probably his actual opinion.

William L. Anderson said...

Gee, fellows, why do you get so angry when I write that Krugman mainly sees "jobs" as income transmission devices? Was it not Krugman who wrote a while back that coming in on a government project under budget was bad because the purpose was spending?

Krugman is a typical Keynesian, and Keynesians view capital investment as being important mostly because of spending, not the actual results of the investment. That is what Keynesians believe, it is not, and I am not sure why you get so upset when I simply point out what you already believe. If you don't like it, then believe something else that you do like.

Mike said...

People like LK and Zac are unwilling to believe something else in the face of contradictory evidence as it would be a tacit admission their entire intellectual foundation on this subject matter is a fraud. Most people are not strong enough intellectually, emotionally or spiritually to make that admission and evolve. Of course these type of people are well suited to become government bureaucrats and politicians.

ALima said...

Public infrastructure is not always good. Too much can be bad. How much is enough is determined by markets. Government interference in that process leads to trafic jams and deaths.

ALima said...

Like!



But what if AM a robot?

Zachriel said...

William L. Anderson: Was it not Krugman who wrote a while back that coming in on a government project under budget was bad because the purpose was spending?

It was rhetorical.

Krugman: Seriously: if the projects really are coming in cheaper than expected, that doesn’t mean we should bank the savings; it means that we need more projects.

ALima: Public infrastructure is not always good. Too much can be bad.

Quite true.

ALima: How much is enough is determined by markets.

Not sure what you mean. How is "public infrastructure" determined by markets?

Anonymous said...

Zachriel: It was rhetorical.

Krugman: Seriously: if the projects really are coming in cheaper than expected, that doesn’t mean we should bank the savings; it means that we need more projects.


Which just supports their point that Krugman believes that the main point of spending money is the spending of the money. If any ol' project will do as long as the money is spent, where do you think the importance is for him?

Zachriel said...

Anonymous: Which just supports their point that Krugman believes that the main point of spending money is the spending of the money.

During a server economic downturn, then spending on essential infrastructure can make sense.

Dennis said...

Define "essential infrastructure". Politicians routinely give those projects exceedingly loose definitions. They fund community clubs, hockey rinks, water and sewer systems etc. all of which could be fully paid for by charging appropriate fees to the users of those services. No subsidies are necessary. The only purpose of the subsidy (or "stimulus") is to transfer income from those who are not politically favored to those that are. Society's wealth levels are not increased by simply shuffling existing wealth around.

Zachriel said...

Dennis: Define "essential infrastructure". Politicians routinely give those projects exceedingly loose definitions.

People have varying ideas of what is essential. We can work around this, though.

When there is a severe economic downturn, then government stimulus can (under certain circumstances) help ameliorate the worse effects of the business cycle, and that money can be used for projects that people want anyway. If you're going to spend money, then spending it on projects that encourage long term growth is reasonable.

Pulverized Concepts said...

The key point is that the optimism about the iPhone’s effects has nothing (or at any rate not much) to do with the presumed quality of the phone, and the ways in which it might make us happier or more productive.

This kind of talk is beyond ridiculous because it implies that we are on a "happiness continuum", that as technological advancements occur we become more happy than we were before. This also implies that our ancestors were less happy, going back many generations they must have been extremely miserable, very unhappy, due to the lack of technological advances that we now take for granted. Thomas Jefferson probably moped around the plantation wishing for electrical distribution to provide light for his late evening reading. I guess when my own personal robot is delivered and the chores of cooking and cleaning are delegated to it I'll be so happy that I just won't be able to stand it.

CPBrown said...

"..cash that would otherwise sit idle."

Krugmanites truly believe that the 1% is just sitting on a pile of cash that would solve everything. The 1% are seemingly doing this only for "evil/selfish" reasons (that are not really all that clear) , not because of uncertainty about the continuing economic experimentations by governments around the world.

Their delusion is that since they won't unclench, the government should just go and take that money & spend it, & we'd all be in great shape forevermore.

Mike said...

Zac said
“People have varying ideas of what is essential. We can work around this, though.”

Typical response. Just wave the objection away like a bothersome gnat. That mentality is how we get bridges to nowhere or tunnels for lizard crossings.

BTW if my resources are idle, it’s for a reason and it’s none of your damn business why, nor is it your business to create disincentives to force me into action I would not otherwise wish to pursue. Unless of course you don’t believe in private property rights.

13th time, what do you do for a living.

Samm said...

"When there is a severe economic downturn, then government stimulus can (under certain circumstances) help ameliorate the worse effects of the business cycle, and that money can be used for projects that people want anyway. If you're going to spend money, then spending it on projects that encourage long term growth is reasonable."

Everything in this paragraph requires an omnipotent government.

Zachriel said...

Mike: Typical response. Just wave the objection away like a bothersome gnat.

We're actually granting the point that some expenditures may not meet his definition of essential.

Mike: BTW if my resources are idle, it’s for a reason and it’s none of your damn business why, nor is it your business to create disincentives to force me into action I would not otherwise wish to pursue.

Have you looked at the money in your pocket? Does it have pictures of your national leaders on it? If you live in the U.S., the money is produced with the specific authorization of the U.S. Constitution, which also gives the Congress the power to tax.

Do you own property? Take a look at your deed. You probably purchased it as fee simple.

Samm: Everything in this paragraph requires an omnipotent government.

Not at all. It only requires countercyclical actions based on the gross behavior of the economy. Markets continue to work based on the individual decisions of the market participants. Projects require planning, of course, but it hardly took omniscience to build the interstate highway system or land a man on the moon.

Mike said...

Article 1 Section 9: No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

Amendment 16: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Notwithstanding the recent Roberts tortured opinion that has no majority concurrence in opinion only result.

You will note the power to tax does not include financial repression via interest rate manipulation nor confiscation of wealth via currency debasement.

The Federal Government has no power over Fee Simple property except that which is called for in the Constitution i.e. eminent domain.

Your response is moronic.

I repeat it is none of your damn business if I choose to have my resources idle.

“It only requires countercyclical actions based on the gross behavior of the economy.”

Show me the authority in the Constitution where the Federal Government has authority to tinker with the economy.

14th reequest: What do you do for a living Zac

Zachriel said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Zachriel said...

Mike: You will note the power to tax does not include financial repression via interest rate manipulation nor confiscation of wealth via currency debasement.

As you point out, the Constitution includes the power to tax and to issue currency.

Mike: The Federal Government has no power over Fee Simple property except that which is called for in the Constitution i.e. eminent domain.

And tax, of course.

Mike: Show me the authority in the Constitution where the Federal Government has authority to tinker with the economy.

Commerce clause. The power to coin. The general welfare clause.

See also, the Principle of Charity.
http://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/charity.html

Mike said...

Zac your 4:35 demonstrates your ignorance of the construct of the Constitution.

The power to tax is as specifically stated. You ignored the point about include financial repression thru interest rate manipulation and confiscation of wealth via currency debasement.

Respects your assertion of “issue currency”: You are incorrect. Article I, Section 8, Clause 5. The Congress shall have Power…To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures. This was a delegation by the States to the Federal government so as to prohibit the Sates from issuing State money. That right was reserved the Federal government to bring money into existence. Money at the time was deemed to be gold and silver. Does the Fed by issuing currency bring Gold and silver into existence? This language was derived from the Articles of Confederation. Note it occurs in the same context as the clause regarding weights and measures. This did not give the Feds power to issue debasing irredeemable paper.


Respects property, the Federal government has no power to tax property held by individuals. I gave you’re the two tax provisions. You must not understand them.

“Commerce clause. The power to coin. The general welfare clause.”

No, no and no. Tinkering with the economy is not authorized by any of these. That is not the intent of the commerce clause. Read the constitutional history on this clause. I addressed the silly “coin” argument. And the fact you cited the general welfare clause confirms you have no understanding of the Constitution. The intent of this clause is to state that the exercise of the enumerated powers must be for the general welfare of the public and not the specific benefit of any one. Your and other Progressives interpretation of “General Welfare” would make the other 17 enumerated powers unnecessary. Madison Federalist #41.

‘Principle of Charity” Fascinating but not relevant.

15th request: what do you do for a living? The longer you evade the more ridiculous you look.

jason h said...

Everything in this paragraph requires an omnipotent government

Oh it requires much more than that!

When there is a severe economic downturn, then government stimulus can (under certain circumstances) help ameliorate the worse effects of the business cycle

This requires an omnipotent being, let’s call him Q, with multi-dimensional time traveling capabilities. Time is quite a stubborn beast. We can’t use historical data/references for an economic experiment because we are dealing with a society of humans - a quirky biological system - any time after t0 is a completely new reality.

Q must travel to multiple timelines and compare the results to determine if stimulus “ameliorates the worst effects […]”

…and that money can be used for projects that people want anyway.

One must be omnipotent to know that people want them anyway considering the projects are not funded with voluntary purchases, but compulsory taxes.

If you're going to spend money, then spending it on projects that encourage long term growth is reasonable.

Again, Q would have travel to multiple realities to know for sure if the economy is better off - opportunity costs.

TheRightRadical said...

See also, the Principle of Charity. ""

BLAH!!!!!!!

You little snot nose, lilly livered moreroon! Charity!

I bet you haven't given money to any worthwhile cause in your entire life! You cheap son-of-bitch!
Let me set you straight pinko. Agitating for taxes. Just so you can sling; your psuedo smug sense of moral superiority, and relieve your guilt for not performing personal acts of kindness to the less fortunate (because you're cheap and lazy)is not charity.
I hope the power you gush over strips you of everything you own, as I also wish for the theocons, to get their faces smashed by the very law enforcement authorites they love to worship, and embrace.
A pox on both your houses. Unfortunately, we the unwilling victims of all these diabolical statist schemes; have to sublease with both of you.
ESAD!!!!

Calgacus said...

One must be omnipotent to know that people want them anyway considering the projects are not funded with voluntary purchases, but compulsory taxes.

Uh, no. Government spending is not funded with taxes. Do movie theaters "fund" their movies by ticket issuance? Funny that ushers rip them up at the entrance then.

Households & Firms pay taxes to the government, to acquire the legal right to engage in the taxed activity. Unemployment is a natural, inevitable consequence of the government's taxation, in fact it is the goal of the government's taxation. What is absurd is the government maintaining this unemployment, preventing people from working, by not providing enough money to them, when they would willingly provide their goods and services for it. Anti-Keynesian non-stimulus is the crazy government intervention. Allowing everyone to work, to return unemployment to the natural rate of zero is much less "interventionist".

Government-forced unemployemnt is pure wealth destruction, so if someone looks at things with an entirely invalid theory of money, like the Austrians, the cessation of this destructive government action looks like magical creation.

It is rumored that human beings have this capacity called "rational thought" which effectively gives them a multi-dimensional time-traveling capacity. Though the degeneration of economics in the last 40 years calls this rumor into question.

Mike said...

Zac

Calcagus

Your monumentally, moronic monologue aside.

Your statement : " Households & Firms pay taxes to the government, to acquire the legal right to engage in the taxed activity"

Provide the Constitutional authority to support the legitimacy of such a structure.

Mike said...

Zac disregard 7:49.

Pulverized Concepts said...

Uh, no. Government spending is not funded with taxes. Do movie theaters "fund" their movies by ticket issuance? Funny that ushers rip them up at the entrance then.

Bad analogy even for an MMT bozo.

Zachriel said...

Mike: You ignored the point about include financial repression thru interest rate manipulation and confiscation of wealth via currency debasement.

"Repression" is a loaded term. If someone were to consider all taxation repression, as some do, and asks if the Constitution authorizes repression, it is clear why the answer wouldn't be a simple yes or no.

Mike: The Congress shall have Power…To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.

The language is pretty clear, including "regulate the Value thereof".

Mike: Respects property, the Federal government has no power to tax property held by individuals.

The Federal government can impose a property tax as long as it is apportioned (Knowlton v. Moore). While the federal government doesn't have a property tax, states and localities certainly do, and that is within fee simple.

Mike: No, no and no.

Any regulation of the economy is "tinkering". And general welfare is very broad. If it means helping storm victims, then that can fall under general welfare.

jason h: This requires an omnipotent being, let’s call him Q, with multi-dimensional time traveling capabilities.

Well, no.

jason h: One must be omnipotent to know that people want them anyway considering the projects are not funded with voluntary purchases, but compulsory taxes.

People reach consensus through the democratic process. It's not perfect, but does reflect to some degree what people want.

jason h: Time is quite a stubborn beast. We can’t use historical data/references for an economic experiment because we are dealing with a society of humans - a quirky biological system - any time after t0 is a completely new reality.

Okay. Let's try your analogy. It requires omniscience to practice medicine because the biological systems are chaotic and unpredictable. Done.

Zachriel said...

TheRightRadical: I bet you haven't given money to any worthwhile cause in your entire life!

Add the Principle of Charity to things you don't understand.
http://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/charity.html

Samm said...

"Okay. Let's try your analogy. It requires omniscience to practice medicine because the biological systems are chaotic and unpredictable. Done."

So in other words, when you start getting a cold, you sometimes have a running nose, other times you get hives on feet, and yet others you have temporary blindness.

Zachriel said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Zachriel said...

Samm: So in other words, when you start getting a cold, you sometimes have a running nose, other times you get hives on feet, and yet others you have temporary blindness.

Just because biological organisms are complex systems with often chaotic responses, it is quite possible to make reasonably reliable predictions concerning their reaction to various interventions. It's not omniscience, but sufficient for practical medicine, such as setting bones or taking aspirin to alleviate the symptoms of the common cold.

Mike said...

Zac "Repression" is a loaded term”

Not it isn’t. It’s a financial term describing the present policy environment. You’re deflecting.

Zac “ The language is pretty clear, including "regulate the Value thereof".”

Simpleton’s response. You don’t understand this history on this language. Go do some homework.

Zac: “The Federal government can impose a property tax as long as it is apportioned (Knowlton v. Moore). While the federal government doesn't have a property tax, states and localities certainly do, and that is within fee simple”

Knowlton was an estate tax case. You’re wrong. Now you try to change the subject to local governments. Nice try

Zac: “Any regulation of the economy is "tinkering".”

No kidding? The question was what’s the constitutional authority for such regulation.

Zac: “And general welfare is very broad.”

You really are obtuse. I explained the constitutional intent of that clause. You’re wrong.

You are way over your head on this subject matter. Give it up.

BTW What do you do for a living? 16th request.

Samm said...

"it is quite possible to make reasonably reliable predictions concerning their reaction to various interventions."

Now you are implying that humans don't think, are preprogrammed, and only change their behavior with outside influence (like a government with godlike powers).

jason h said...

People reach consensus through the democratic process. It's not perfect, but does reflect to some degree what people want.

In other words, after we confiscate, erm, tax your wages you get to vote on how we spend it. Hopefully, you vote with the 51%, so your wages get spent on what you want. Oh, and don’t forget most of your taxes will be spent bombing women and children in a desert far away.

As discussed before on this blog, once you take away and individual’s right to choose in the market and impose taxes and “social goods”, you have no way of knowing what people truly want…unless you’re omnipotent of course.

Let's try your analogy.

Let us! Clearly it went over your head.

Keynesians have attempted to apply mechanical analysis to a non-mechanical system – thus my ‘quirky biological’ remark.

Yes, a homo sapien is a bio-mechanical system. This system follows the thermodynamic and mechanical laws of the universe. Sure, I will likely purchase food and water tomorrow, but that is biology not economics.

There are no universal constants or laws that govern Acting Man.

Any attempt to aggregate these economic actors into some mechanical system and then manipulate said system is silly. Consequently, there is no way to know if stimulus helps without Q trying stimulus in one dimension and abstaining in another and comparing the results. Even then, Q would only have a correlation.

Zachriel said...

Mike: {Repression} is a financial term describing the present policy environment.

Just so we're clear, is taxation repression? Is issuing paper money repression?

Mike: Simpleton’s response.

Simpleton, as in case law. See Knox v. Lee.

Mike: Knowlton was an estate tax case.

Yes, that's right, and the decision defines direct taxation and how it applies, the requirement under the constitution being that the tax be apportioned.

You had incorrectly stated the federal government can't tax property. That is incorrect, as long as the tax is apportioned.

Samm: Now you are implying that humans don't think, are preprogrammed, and only change their behavior with outside influence (like a government with godlike powers).

We were showing how the analogy fails. Your comment doesn't follow either directly or through the analogy.

Biological organisms can change without outside influence (like doctors). Economies can change without outside influence (like governments). On the other hand, one doesn't have to be omniscient to know that aspirin can reduce aches and pains, or that government spending for roads results in roads being built.


Zachriel said...

Zachriel: People reach consensus through the democratic process. It's not perfect, but does reflect to some degree what people want.

jason h: As discussed before on this blog, once you take away and individual’s right to choose in the market and impose taxes and “social goods”, you have no way of knowing what people truly want…unless you’re omnipotent of course.

So it's not a matter of what people want, but what they "truly want".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

jason h: Yes, a homo sapien is a bio-mechanical system. This system follows the thermodynamic and mechanical laws of the universe.

Apparently, you agree your analogy was faulty, then.

jason h: There are no universal constants or laws that govern Acting Man.

You just named one; thermodynamics. No "Act of Man" {with capitals to make it special!} violates the laws of thermodynamics.

We gave a simple example in the previous comment. The government spends money for roads, with the result that roads get built.

Mike said...

Zac: “Just so we're clear, is taxation repression? Is issuing paper money repression?”

So what you’re saying is you don’t understand what financial repression is as applied to the current monetary policy environment. Go do some homework and come back when you are prepared.

Zac: “Knox v. Lee.”

Oh so you changed your mind when your citation failed. This is a legal tender case. Not the same thing as the original constitutional meaning of “regulating the value thereof.” Stop reading Supreme Court history and research Constitutional history. They are not the same thing.

First: this was a Civil War case in a series of abuses of the Constitution.

Second: this case overturned Hepburn which was decided only a year earlier in the other direction. The court was light two justices and Grant jammed in two banking friendly justices. No doubt this is where FDR learned his game of threatening to pack the court when his New Deal legislation was going down in flames.

Third: this case is full of tortured rationales to reach a foregone conclusion. Framers couldn’t anticipate blah blah, necessary and proper blah blah

Fourth: It said paper money was not unconstitutional. Embedded in that decision was physical backing.

Fifth: Are you under the delusion that the USSC is always correct?

But you go ahead and keep doing your Google searches. They will offer you no insight because you only have a superficial understanding of the matter.

Zac: “You had incorrectly stated the federal government can't tax property. That is incorrect, as long as the tax is apportioned.”

I cited to you the apportionment requirement you nitwit so I know what it is. And we were talking about real property. Now you have changed the subject. Nice three card Monty.

17th request What do you do for a living? Or are you going to evade again like a coward?

Zachriel said...

Mike: So what you’re saying is you don’t understand what financial repression is as applied to the current monetary policy environment.

What a reasonable person would do when asked for clarification is to say that they are using it in the sense of a way to channel funds to the government, or they mean something else, as it wasn't clear from context.

Are you a reasonable person?

Mike: And we were talking about real property.

Yes. This is what you said.

Mike: The Federal Government has no power over Fee Simple property except that which is called for in the Constitution i.e. eminent domain.

They have the power to tax, among other things. Nor is eminent domain a negligible power.

Mike: This did not give the Feds power to issue debasing irredeemable paper.

It allows them to coin an ounce of silver and call it a dollar, or coin an ounce of copper and call it a dollar. It's no different with paper money, as argued in Knox v. Lee.

Mike: Are you under the delusion that the USSC is always correct?

Not at all. However, you said it was a "simpleton's response".

M: Simpleton.
Z: 140 year old legal precedent

It's clear which is the better argument. It's also quite obvious that you continue to substitute ad hominem for reasoned discourse, which only demonstrates your lack of confidence in your argument.


Mike said...

Zac “140 year old legal precedent”

First your “precedent” is not on point to the argument I was making
Second Legal precedent build upon a faulty premise does not make the byproduct legal.

I never said eminent domain was a negligible power. Yet another example of you putting words in people mouths to make yourself appear smart.

Your repetition of Knox on the issue demonstrates your failure to understand Supreme Court history vs Constitutional history.

I am reasonable as contrasted to you who create the fa├žade of being reasonable.

Which leads me to the next post.

Mike said...

Zac,

I have requested no less than 17 times that you offer up what you do for a living to provide better context to the positions you take on this blog. You ignore and evade again and again.

You cherry pick selected criticisms of your positions by others. You deflect arguments like a two bit carnival barker. When you are nailed dead to rights wrong on a matter, you change the subject and attribute comments and meaning to others they did not make.

You have demonstrated no interest in expanding understanding, only in creating the illusion for yourself that you are right and accentuate that illusion with last word syndrome. Your posts are an echo chamber of tributes to your perceived superiority. You appear to suffer from some type of psychological pathology in this area. You’re posting style is prototypical passive-aggressive.

You appear to be educated but deficient in understanding. Deep down you probably think you are part of the intelligentsia, but in reality you can only aspire to be a Court Intellectual.

You are in fact an intellectual fraud.

Accordingly I have no interest in responding to your nonsense any longer as you don’t even provide entertainment value. I state this not so that I think it will cause you deep reflection and perhaps an epiphany, but only so you don’t misconstrue my lack of response to you as acquiescence to your statist arguments.

Seek help.

Zachriel said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Zachriel said...

Mike: First your “precedent” is not on point to the argument I was making

That's not what you said previously. You said it was a "Simpleton's response". Your reply was to call names.

On the issue of Congress regulating the value of coinage, we cited precedent from Knox v. Lee which argued that Congress could coin an ounce of silver and call it a dollar, or coin an ounce of copper and call it a dollar, or coin an ounce of paper and call it a dollar. But you didn't respond to this point, even though the argument has been U.S. legal precedent for 140 years.

In any case, while the Supreme Court could certainly be wrong, citing precedent is still a stronger argument than a personal attack (fallacy of diversion).

Mike: Which leads me to the next post.

Sorry, but your second comment is completely blacked out by our spam filter.

Mike said...

Z "Sorry, but your second comment is completely blacked out by our spam filter."

Bullshit. You're a fraud

TheRightRadical said...

Add the Principle of Charity to things you don't understand.
http://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/charity.html""

What this has to do with anything you say here. It is only for a knucklehead like you to figure out.
But I stand by my statement that you're worthless, actually worse then worthless. Since you're idelogue, and blinded by the Death cult of the state.
ESAD!

jason h said...

Not sure if obtuse or trolling.

So it's not a matter of what people want, but what they "truly want".

We gave a simple example in the previous comment. The government spends money for roads, with the result that roads get built.

There is a difference between a voluntarily purchase and choosing what the thief spends my money on.

You just named one; thermodynamics. No "Act of Man" {with capitals to make it special!} violates the laws of thermodynamics.

Did you forget you were trolling an Austrian blog?

http://mises.org/humanaction/chap1sec1.asp

Conscious or purposeful behavior is in sharp contrast to unconscious behavior, i.e., the reflexes and the involuntary responses of the body's cells and nerves to stimuli.
Human action is purposeful behavior. Or we may say: Action is will put into operation and transformed into an agency, is aiming at ends and goals, is the ego's meaningful response to stimuli and to the conditions of its environment, is a person's conscious adjustment to the state of the universe that determines his life.

Zachriel said...

jason h: There is a difference between a voluntarily purchase and choosing what the thief spends my money on.

Yes, there is, but you had claimed there was no way for the government to ever intervene in the economy with any hope of predictability. We provided a simple example.

jason h: Human action is purposeful behavior.

Yes. It still doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics.