Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
I am a regular subscriber to the website WhoWhatWhy written by investigative journalist Russ Baker. Recently he ran a response by one of his readers, Dave Parker, to a video Russ posted of Nick Hanuer, a billionaire venture capitalist who gave a talk at TED, which is an acronym for the non-profit, Technology, Entertainment and Design, TED holds conferences around the world on business/societal issues that relate to its theme. In his talk Mr. Hanuer dispelled the idea that the Rich create wealth and instead said it was really the middle-classes that drove the economy. He disparaged the idea that it is the entrepreneurs who are the “job creators”. Although the talk was well received by the conference attendees, TED curiously chose not to publicize it as it usually does with other such talks. Perhaps their decision was because Mr. Hanuer’s thesis goes against the current widely accepted mythology regarding job creation and entrepreneurship. Here is a video of his talk:
In his comment on this video, Dave Parker used the writings of Joseph Campbell. Joseph Campbell was:
“an American mythologist, writer and lecturer, best known for his work in comparative mythology and comparative religion. His work is vast, covering many aspects of the human experience.”
My reading Dave’s article was the type of moment where you can imagine me slapping my head and exclaiming: “Damn, why didn’t I think of that”. Indeed, I’ve read all of Campbell’s books and seen all of his famed PBS series of interviews, done with Bill Moyers. What follows is my jumping off from Mr. Parker’s excellent comments and any credit for what I’m writing here goes to him for his perception. In applying Campbell to Mr. Hanuer’s comments, Dave solidified a concept for me that’s been playing in my head for years about the 1%’s need to increase the disparity between themselves and everyone else . The Rich are trying to create a new kind of feudalism where Lordships are won not on battlefields, but in corporate boardrooms. The rest of us need to be impoverished because without serfs to worship them, having everything ultimately becomes boring. Some of the 1% no doubt are less ego-driven and have empathy for those not on their level, but even they are beneficiaries of a mythology in creation. I believe that this mythology is the result of a campaign waged since the supporters of Barry Goldwater went down to an inglorious defeat.
Joseph Campbell spent his life studying and teaching about mythology. This is a word that usually evokes images of the Hindu, Greek, Roman and Norse Gods. In a way, for some, mythology has become conflated with paganism. To Christians, Muslims and Jews of fundamentalist beliefs mythology is the other guys religion, when in fact it is also true of their own. However, Campbell did not stop with religion as mythology, he saw it as a driving force shaping human behavior and thus also studied the effects of cultural and political beliefs on human societies. Below is his sense of the role mythology plays in shaping ourselves and our societies via what Campbell calls the “Four Functions of Myth” taken from Campbell’s: “Pathways to Bliss (Novato, CA: New World Library), pp 6-10.”, I will discuss how these functions play out today to shape our collective views of the world.
One salient piece of Campbell’s history should be looked at before showing how these elements of mythological creation have been used in America, to lay the groundwork for a Corporate Feudalism, that will leave enthrone 1% as our Nobility. Dave Parker gives a side of Campbell that I was not aware of and I feel explains much:
“Campbell himself lectured for the State Department’s Foreign Service Institute for Decades, beginning 1956.……………That tells me that ever since the greed heads and warmongers at State and elsewhere have been steeped in a perverse reading of Campbell’s work. They read it for its utilitarian value in pursuing “National Security”. And the “successes” of the Feds are envied and emulated in the world of corporate propagandizing”
My suspicions are that we are being led via popular culture and the redefinition of celebrity, into a mindset that opens the door for Corporate Feudalism and indeed shapes the attitudes of most people. These are Campbell’s Four Functions of Mythology (.pdf):
1. …the first function of mythology [is] to evoke in the individual a sense of grateful, affirmative awe before the monstrous mystery that is existence
2. The second function of mythology is to present an image of the cosmos, an image of the universe round about, that will maintain and elicit this experience of awe. [or] …to present an image of the cosmos that will maintain your sense of mystical awe and explain everything that you come into contact with in the universe around you.
3. The third function of a mythological order is to validate and maintain a certain sociological system: a shared set of rights and wrongs, proprieties or improprieties, on which your particular social unit depends for its existence.
4. …the fourth function of myth is psychological. That myth must carry the individual through the stages of his life, from birth through maturity through senility to death. The mythology must do so in accords with the social order of his group, the cosmos as understood by his group”
As sentient beings, self-involved, the fear of our inevitable demise is primary to our existence. This gives rise in us to yearnings for meaning in our lives and purpose to our lives. Most of us need the comfort that when our inevitable end comes, we will continue to exist in some form. Beyond religion though, we are essentially social beings, who have learned the benefit of co-existence with other members of our species. In shaping our society it is essential that we have some over-arching concept that something exists around us to keep us safe from the terrors that are the legacy of our predatory past. We develop words like Republic, Democracy, Islamism, Libertarianism, Fascism and others of that ilk that provide individuals with a sense of something larger than themselves that provide protection for us and give meaning to our lives. In tandem to those words connoting societal structure are conflated words relating to the economic systems we live under such as Capitalism, Liberalism, Socialism, Communism etc. In truth all of these words meanings varies with each individuals perception of their meanings.
Most Americans have been inculcated with a set of mythological buzzwords if you will, that connote our Country’s notion of “exceptionalism“. We have been taught that America is a “Republican Democracy” thriving under a “Capitalist” economic system that provides us “Freedom”. We use symbols such as our Flag, our Anthem, and our Constitution to invoke the “grateful, affirmative awe” that Campbell describes. We are proud to be Americans and most importantly we feel protected by our mythology.
These mythological symbols have been translated by our government beginning in WWII and throughout the “Cold War” into awe inspiring emotions within us. Even as I try maintain a skeptical distance between myself and the myth of America’s Dream, I am also emotionally stirred by the evocation of this mythology, that approaches the “grateful awe” of which Campbell speaks. My sense of that awe is limned by my understanding that America’s Constitution nowhere mentions Capitalism, or even sets up a national economic system, so when I see this economic theory conflated with the notion of Freedom my hackles rise. I imagine this is not true for the majority of Americans and this has led to the widespread belief in the “American Dream” and our viewpoint that even the least among us can achieve untold success. People seem to not want to vote in their own self interest. It is this notion of the “American Dream” that has allowed taxation to become inequitable to the point where the rich pay a lesser percentage of their income than the rest of the people, yet many of those shouldering this burden are lured by the siren call of “no more taxes” for fear that they will be burdened once their own success is achieved.
This matches well with another piece of the American mythological order in that there is the widespread concept of a “free market” being the apex of economic freedom. Thus all economic problems can be solved by ensuring that the “free market” is allowed to reign undisturbed by selfish manipulations of the government. The argument about whether there even is such a thing as a “free market” I’ll leave for another day. It is incontrovertible though, that this is a belief of a large majority of Americans and certainly has fared well in the political context. In the notion though of a “free market” comes a further notion that those who partake in the market’s freedom, indeed the movers and shakers of the market itself, are the “real heroes” of the “American Dream”. The Entrepreneur is held up as the most meritorious among us, because it is the Entrepreneur whose efforts create all of the blessings we share in common. The definition of entrepreneur of course is quite stretchable and leads from people of modest birth like Buffett/Gates, to those whose fortunes have been inherited like the Koch Brothers/Walton’s/Trump’s.
If our society is driven by these entrepreneurs then of course their status is rightfully at the top of our particular American food chain. They become sources to be venerated, copied, modeled after and of course envied. I believe they are well aware of this, luxuriate in their Alpha positions and assume the trappings suited to their status. Interestingly, many of the scions of “Old Wealth” in this country eschew the immodest lifestyle, thinking it gauche and nouveau riche. While their living standard reflects the elite into which they were born, they don’t feel the need to flaunt it like those parveneau’s such as Trump. For the masses of us we understand on some level that the Mellon’s for instance, are better than we, even though they don’t comport themselves in a way that draws publicity. Our role models for wealth come from those such as Donald Trump, who beyond his money and/or accomplishment, branded himself as the epitome of wealth and living luxuriously, even though his example is one of gaudy ostentation in the worst of taste. He is the entrepreneur as version of the Movie Star, which has been so confused with success and the “American Dream” that one became President and another the Governor of California.
Awe can be described as “a feeling of reverential respect mixed with fear or wonder”. This in truth is the way many of us view the elite of this country. This has been reinforced time and again by both media and by those in Academia who have functioned as their minions. It has also been the thrust of a massive propaganda campaign to disparage “liberalism” and turn the country towards what was redefined as a “conservative”viewpoint. I believe that viewpoint is less about political philosophy and more about solidifying the hold upon this country of a newly defined aristocracy. We are in “awe” of these our bettors, just as much as the medieval peasantry was in awe of the nobility of their day. Back then the gossip about the local Dukes latest mistress was as interesting and as titillating as Tom Cruise’s divorce, or The Kardashian’s TV show.
In medieval times entertainers were considered to be much less reputable, even while sharing relatively wide fame. Shakespeare was considered disreputable despite his fame in his day. Today entertainers are lionized as members of the elite which is mainly to conflate their fame with that of the Corporate/Inherited Elite, thus borrowing their glamour for the latter. In our society today the doings of the super-rich and other celebrities has become mainstream news. HGTV, for instance, has three programs dedicated to lovingly show the housing of the rich in New York, LA and London. The edifice homes, some costing as much as $50 million are displayed to us peasants for what reasons exactly, if not to inspire us with awe at the lives of our “betters“? Can we all remember the adulation poured out on the passing of Steve Jobs? He certainly was a man who made many contributions, but from his deification one would think he was directly transported to Valhalla. There is deification of our Armed Forces as the heroic exemplars of all that is good and true in America, yet are true gratitude is such that 50% of their families are on Food Stamps. Remember the hushed tones in which the news media portrayed General Petreus? That polls have shown many Americans to believe Ronald Reagan was our “Greatest President” is yet another example of the conflation of celebrity with supposed greatness. Neither Petreus, nor Reagan were either super-rich or super-competent, but they were treated with the deference of nobility and that is the point. We hold all these symbols in awe and the underlying message is one of gratitude to them for showing us what to aspire to and by leading us benighted fools through example. Jesus is of course the ultimate myth since in the opinion of many his decisions control our lives for eternity. “What would Jesus do” is a question asked by multitudes and many have been led to believe that if returned today he would be our ultimate entrepreneur.
This returns us full circle to Mr. Hanuer dispelling the idea that the “rich” create wealth. They are not in the end the “job creators” that Mr. Romney and conservative “wisdom” would have us believe. Yet I must acknowledge that a sizable number of Americans would take exception to that assertion. I think too that the “creator” part of that meme is one fraught with connotation. Just as religion deems that God created the world, isn’t there a strong inference with the term “job creator” that would lead one to feel that the Entrepreneur created America. Doesn’t the mythological creature in that reference stand above the Founding Fathers in our current mythological reference of America being the most exceptional country in history? I believe we are blinded by this American mythology to such an extent that the problems we face as a society will not be fully recognized until it is too late and we will collapse in the shattering realization that so many of our life perceptions are mythological in origin.
Adolph Hitler took a shattered country with a hyper-inflated, impoverished economy and through the brilliance of a master of mythology, Joseph Goebbels, created a world power with the potential for empire. NAZI Germany’s destruction though came about chiefly because the mythologists began to believe, along with those they had gulled, that their mythology was absolute truth and that they the “Master Race“ would prevail against all odds. Fresh from the incredible triumph of World War II and with the evidence of the most impressive military/industrial buildup in history, our politicians and public became convinced of the “exceptional nature” of the United States. We discovered another implacable foe to oppose and fought a new kind of war on a global basis. That having ended with the USSR’s collapse the country’s elite searched for new “enemies” with which to keep our military occupied and our defense industry rich. Perhaps the culmination of the idea of our country’s exceptional nature came with the writing of the “Project For The New American Century” a design to make the United States into an Empire in the Twenty-First Century. The two main guiding architects of that manifesto were Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfield, who also were the architects of the two wars in which we are still enmeshed.
Joseph Campbell correctly believed that mythology serves as a glue to maintain human beings in the close relationship of society, to give meaning to our lives and to give us inspiration to progress and achieve heretofore unthought-of accomplishments. Mythology though can also be the undoing of a society, community, ethnicity and religion. I believe that in the case of our country I see the signs of our common mythology seeding the possibility of disaster. For the dream captured, however imperfectly, in our Constitution, to culminate in a feudal system dominated by Corporatism, would seem to me tragic. My hope is that this piece will initiate some creative thought in the reader, just as Dave Parker’s comments did with me and I’m interested in how others view this concept of mythology recreating the Feudal System.
Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
Slartibartfast
None of the responses have dismantled the claims I’ve made – in fact there has been remarkably NO refutation of the points, but rather a desire to avoid them repeatedly.
Where is the challenge to the statement that people choose to spend resources on that which is most important to them? Not once (unless I missed it) has there been a direct challenge. Instead it’s “Oh he’s got religion, he doesn’t know what science is, he wrote some article …”
The debaters so far have simply missed the point that science (I should say empiricism) is not a reliable method to use in the investigation of human action … and for the proof of that I give you the current state of economics!
in fact, most of the complaints on the board in regards to the incorrectness of current economics do not trace the fact that the illegitimacy directly stems from the use of “mathematics” (i.e. applying the methods of physics) to human action. Mathematical “empirical” economics as practiced popularly is incorrect, and it will continue to be incorrect. It starts wrong, and proceeds wrong, both errors compounding each other.
At the same time, the problems are blamed on the “free market” which was not free — bailouts are not the “free market”, fraud is not the “free market”, unsound monetary policy is not the “free market”, lending to people that cannot pay is not the “free market”, wild deficits the world has never seen is not the “free market”. The solution is not to make the market even less free via additional burdens, but to roll back the incredible subsidy the elite (illegitimate) rich have now. Anything else is to play into their hands. I think that is unarguable, yet I find it argued everywhere here.
As far as arguments from authority, all arguments use a method of truth: logic, observation, postulative, mathematical, “scientific”, revelation, “God spoke to me”, etc.
Here, the methods of empiricism are well regarded as an authority, although I find it terribly lacking in human affairs. It is incredible to note that economics and finance **has been** empiricist all this time (Value-At-Risk, indifference curves, etc. etc.) and that is why the state of economics is where it is. Far from “not being empirical enough”, the entire weight of the economics academic profession is mathematical, statistical, and empirical ! I disagree with the starting point. I disagree with the premises (which are obviously false!) People are not “rational actors” (and Austrian economics never argues they are!). All the nonsensical **neoclassical** economic fallacies are laid at the feet of Austrian economics which is in opposition to those fallacies … and then it is said that I am unfamiliar with Austrian economics!
As far as von Mises, he was incredibly intelligent – and correct! He predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union but unfortunately did not live to see it. I enjoy using him as a reference because he writes with cogency, clarity, and logic, not, as a few on this board have incorrectly asserted, by “religiosity”, but by reasoning, building up carefully from known principles to broader economics (I hesitate to use the word science as it is so misunderstood). Using a source of knowledge doesn’t mean that it is an “argument from authority” in the sense that the term has been used. If Mises provided a logical demonstration of economics, then the authority is logic, not Mises – a point missed again and again.
Best,
— Jim.
Gene:
“Penultimate” as “ultimate. “Accurate” as “efficient.” Am I in Wonderland and has that nasty egg told me yet again:
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – – that’s all.”
“Jim Bradley 1, July 10, 2012 at 12:44 am
Mr. Spindell,
I see you persist in diversionary tactics.”
That’s really funny from someone trying to change the subject once cornered. Is that a tactic that they teach at the von Mises Institute? Because almost every Austrian Schooler I’ve debated in the past has resorted to that tactic in retreat. Your guys are so predictable.
Mr. Spindell,
I see you persist in diversionary tactics. The Federal Reserve forces businesses into a hyper-competitive atmosphere by the nature of printed money. The moral thing to have done, is of course, to shut down the business, which unfortunately is the only alternative when the Fed is blowing up a market. A number of lenders were forced (if they wished to remain open) to compete on the basis of lower credit quality, because the guy down the street was getting “funny money” from the Fed … an error which does not occur when the money is sound. In basics, good X cannot rise to the moon because it must take more money from good Y which is a budget constraint. In that way a less elastic money supply prevents the kind of rampant asset inflation which wreaked havoc on our economy. It sounds like, for the readership here, you didn’t want to elaborate, instead taking only the title, which is of course, out of context.
In any case, I see that you persist in refusing directly confront the central issue.
In what way is the statement “people choose to expend their limited resources on those things which they most highly value” in any way false?
Cheers right back at you,
— Jim.
Gene,
Theorems, statistics??? My head is going to explode with all of this “new math” talk!! 🙂
Jim,
Accurate? Accurate means “free from error especially as the result of care”. The examples stated above of supply and demand manipulation show that the market isn’t anything like accurate. Wealth-creating activities? Your question begs the question that every endeavor of society should be done on a for-profit basis. You are also moving the goal post. We were originally discussing the rather silly the economic calculation problem, not methods of “wealth creation”. It’s a loaded question that means nothing in the context of what we were talking about and attempts to change the subject.
Try formulating a real question or even an assertion that can withstand critical scrutiny, Jim.
Good luck.
Gene
Jim B said:
So you are saying that all arguments are fallacious? Can you point out any of these arguments from authority? What authority are you appealing to in support of this argument? What authority have I appealed to in my comments (besides my specific and explicit appeal to myself as an authority on mathematics)? In reading what you, Gene, and Mike S. have written, I think it’s pretty clear to most readers (or at least it seems clear to me) that Gene understands your argument (and how to dismantle it) better than you do, that Mike’s allegation that you are treating the Austrian school as a secular religion is dead on, and that your (or the Austrian’s) rejection of the scientific method makes your version of economics at best ineffectual and at worst
Tony C said:
Math and science are two completely different fields of endeavor–science is a technique for understanding the universe through empiricism while mathematics is an abstract intellectual construct which has been shown to be helpful in describing various aspects of the universe. In other words, while they are (in some sense) related, they are not really adjacent.
Gene,
Can you answer the question or are you unable? I will phrase it correctly this time: “What authority higher than the market (free market, as defined without force, threat of force, or fraud) would be more accurate for wealth-creating activities?”
Good luck,
–Jim.
Jim :
“As far as an “efficient” valuation mechanism, the market (when free) is in fact the **penultimate** valuation mechanism … because it is human choice in action. What authority could hold a more accurate view?
And yes, I ask that sentence as a challenge.”
*************************
After reading this rather one-sided exchange, your “challenge” sort of reminds me of this:
Jim,
I must admit that sometimes I’m slow on the uptake. After googling “Jim Bradley” and Von Mises I came across your article “Don’t Blame the Sub Prime Lenders” at the Von Mises website. It all became clear when I read it. Of course you disagree with my blog and liken it to Marxism. You consider yourself to be with the entrepreneurial class, just as Von Mises. Sometimes “follow the money, literally means follow the money.
Cheers,
Mike
And what Mike said.
I suggest you not tell me how to argue. If you don’t like that I point out your premises in the Austrian School lack both scientific methodology and rigor, then adopt an economic stance that utilizes rigorous scientific methodology, Jim.
“As far as my understanding of economics or the Austrian school, I trust you understand throwing out accusations of my lack of knowledge is fruitless.”
I trust you understand that you just revealed that what I said and your response brought out the excluded middle from the original two choices presented (your possible ignorance or you lack of familiarity with criticisms of the Austrian School) and this is the possibility that you are a liar. This is evidenced by you claiming that the Austrian School does not argue from efficiency and then turning around and . . . arguing from efficiency with the statement: “As far as an “efficient” valuation mechanism, the market (when free) is in fact the **penultimate** valuation mechanism … because it is human choice in action. What authority could hold a more accurate view?
And yes, I ask that sentence as a challenge.”
You beg the question that free markets are not just efficient, but not as efficient as other systems of valuation. What? You do realize that is what you said, don’t you? Penultimate means “next to the last”. However, if in abusing the English language, you actually meant to use the word “ultimate” as in “the best or most extreme of its kind”, then you still must deal with the fact you are making an appeal to authority and it is the very authority you are trying to make the case for being right. This is a logical fallacy. However, if you view the free market as the ultimate valuation mechanism and we disregard your logical and linguistic errors, then you are neglecting the fact that some component of demand is psychological and capable of manipulation as evidenced by the entire advertising industry as well as the fact that supply can be manipulated by creating artificial scarcity to drive up prices, by naturally occurring (i.e. without governmental intervention or sanction) monopolies used to rig prices or by other similar manipulations.
Challenge?
You make me laugh, Jim.
Your assertion doesn’t even pass muster with minimal critical scrutiny applied to it, Jim.
The authority of basic knowledge of observable documented market phenomena combined with logic can hold a more accurate view than your appeal to authority in part because the view you assert is based on faulty premises and lack the proper practices and methodology to test its hypotheses and instead relies upon assertions based on “because von Mises said so”.
As to the predictions? Others from different schools of economic thought came to similar or the same predictions so your claims of “they predicted the bad outcomes” is essentially meaningless in terms of proving the internal consistency of the Austrian School’s “methodology” or the causal connection because you have no data or metrics to fallback on for the basis of your predictions, just polemics and assertions without scientific evidence.
Thanks for the chuckle.
Jim,
By the way your statement “science adds nothing….”, is equivalent to a fundamentalist deriding the theory of evolution because we can learn nothing of the creation of the world without reading Genesis.
Have a Nice Day,
Mike
Jim,
Here’s what you just don’t get, your “known
observed truth” is really an unproven assertion made by someone whose dogma you consider wisdom. That you call it truth doesn’ t make it true without some basis of proof that it is true. However, if you deal in tautology, then to those who have deemed a fraud like Von Mises erudite, you have the wisdom of a prophet. By your own words and your refusal to make any points beyond naked assertions and sending us to a link to his work, you are behaving in a similar fashion to a religious zealot.
That your knowledge of Von Mises may be deficient as others have proposed, is exemplified by your inability to do more explaining and less asserting. For instance I am trained in a specific area of psychotherapy founded by a man named Perls. Yet I can discuss the subject thoroughly, with proof of my beliefs, without having once to reference him. You apparently can’t do the same and that is why your belief bears striking similarity to those holding religious views. Now to be fair, given that’s the case, I shouldn’t expect more from you than from a Christian who believes Jesus is a Republican.
Best Wishes,
Mike
Gene H.
I suggest you drop the word “scientific” from your arguments, as it adds nothing. Statements are true or false or undetermined or undeterminable. Science adds nothing but a method which has applicability to a certain scope of problems which are not economic in origin, at least, not in the way we are using the word science here. The word “science” has been used in far too many contradictory contexts having differing meanings to add anything to the discussion.
As far as my understanding of economics or the Austrian school, I trust you understand throwing out accusations of my lack of knowledge is fruitless. Either the statements made here are true, visible, reliable, logical, or they are not. Criticisms abound of the Austrian school, and some are valid, yet here we are in the situation predicted by those Austrian economists you appear to despise, going in a direction they predict – not with perfection as to the timing, as that cannot exist when there are thinking participants, but nonetheless, with unexorable certainty, given the conditions.
As far as an “efficient” valuation mechanism, the market (when free) is in fact the **penultimate** valuation mechanism … because it is human choice in action. What authority could hold a more accurate view?
And yes, I ask that sentence as a challenge.
— Jim.
Mike Spindell,
Everyone makes an argument from authority. The question is, whether the framework is correct. Conflating a known, observed truth in economics with the practice of referring to an unseen God is not going to make your position stronger.
Again, the idea is to reason from known truths. Those are not “theories” but applications of observation of what “is”, then of logic following that reality.
Voluntary trade increases wealth because both parties to the transfer feel it is in their better interest to trade and they are more an authority than outsiders. Wealth is increased according to the laws of subjective valuation – both people leave the trade better off then before.
Unfortunately, it was hardly debated why and how the market works, what constitutes a market (voluntary trade, free from fraud, threat, or violence), what the definition of government is (a monopoly on the use of force) .. yet continuously I hear that the market is referred to as “wrong” – even when what we have can hardly be termed a market. New interventions are layered over old interventions — such as desired by Mr. Hauer, and those will have side effects that will be a net negative which will require more interventions … ad infinitum until we are all in “Serfdom”. I suggest we roll back the entire thinking. We return to sound money, limited government, reduced interference (especially that of preventing failure by soaking the middle class), and to freedom as opposed to power (something Rothbard noted was a recurrent theme in history as he was a fantastic historian).
I think the argument has been well made, from a philosophical and (occasionally empirical) viewpoint. Additional taxation and government spending is a redirection of resources into a socialistic direction. I would much prefer rolling back the prior errors (banking bailouts, monetary mismanagement, legal corruption) than pile new error on the old error.
Best wishes,
— Jim.
Gene,
I was going to write something about Shakespeare but then decided it belonged on the Propaganda thread.
Tony C.,
I spent my afternoon driving from one place to the other running errands. Other than paying attention to traffic, it was rather mindless work so I was able to put your Hollywood Model through several different scenarios in my mind and … it works. It really works.
Really. Then I guess all that noise about capitalism and determining price has nothing to do with the market as an efficient valuation mechanism over other choices which von Mises unscientifically dismisses as “impossible”. It strikes me that either you don’t know as much about the Austrian School as you think you do or you are unfamiliar with the criticisms against it, Jim. You should read some Alec Nove.
Gene,
So far as I know, Austrian economists do not make an argument from efficiency.
Take care,
— Jim.
I listen to scientists, Dredd. Unlike you, I actually understand what they are saying and in proper context. I am interested in new discoveries including the ones you point to as well. I don’t see them as a threat. That I don’t genuflect and worship them like you do and instead understand them in the proper context of natural selection seems to present a problem for you, but I’m not threatened. Annoyed at your perpetual stupidity and misplaced theological zeal perhaps, but not threatened in the slightest.
Call me a bully all you like. Pointing out you are a pantsload isn’t being a bully. It’s pointing out you are a pantsload.
Every time you resort to “defending your arguments” such as it is by calling me a bully when you can’t disprove my valid criticisms of pseudo-scientific fairy tale and saying “Grandpa’s dictionary!” like it’s a talisman of some sort, you just look more and more like an overly sensitive and defensive idiot.
Carry on.