The Federal Reserve: Love it or Hate it

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
in short, yes. by managing the business cycle, the amplitude of that cycle can be reduced. "overproduction" though is a bit tricky. i'd rather say "production in excess of some limit where the next units produced will be inflationary to a point of pain as a result of instability brough on by large price increases."

but simply put, yes, manageing the businss cycle is a belief of mine as you could guess from my posts.

Barron


[/ QUOTE ]

ok so this is one of things I dont really understand. Why doesnt the market reach equilibrium again? Even if the government can smooth out these short term shocks, you seem to be claiming that the market left to its own means will enter into inescapable depression.

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
There's a related thread in EDF.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think our thread is much better [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[WillMagic]

pvn is on FIRE.

*cue cheerleading picture*

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, wow. Here we go. Tacict consent is a totally morally bankrupt idea. It's been totally roasted. There are about two hundred threads here covering this, feel free to look them up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, essentially the dominant philosophical justification for the state, held by a majority of political philsophers for more than three centuries now ... totally roasted on the 2p2 message boards. ZOMG HUNDREDS OF THREADS ON IT, RIGHT HERE ON 2p2. Believe it or not, an ACist hand-wavingly claims the entire theory is roasted. Who'd have thought that? Not me. What a surprise. In other news, creationists claim Darwin went down in flames due to the power of their irrefutable logic. Surprising, no? What absolutely newsworthy and surprising argument you have: an anarchist claims justification for the state roasted, and cites past claims and ideological allies' concurrence. What's next, a link to a 'great' Borodog post? Maybe mises.org?

Good to see "assert your way to victory" is a strategy ACists will never tire of: "don't believe me? Go find the last time I said it! Be sure to note how all my buddies agree with me."

Look, if you want to say tacit consent is bankrupt, go nuts. If you're tired of actually spelling out your argument for why you believe that, and ask people to search the archives for your feeling on the subject, that's legitimate. But to claim "it's roasted" is nothing more than asserting your way to victory. Anyone can handwave. See, watch me:

barron, don't listen to pvn. He's wrong. Lots of threads on it. He's been roasted. He's a bad arguer that uses stupid, ridiculous and completely inane analogies to make illogical points to justify his philosophy, which has essentially been laughed out of most reputable academic institutions decades ago. Notice how his allies exist almost solely as fellow intraweb message board posters who likely can't buy a drink in a bar, and a website (mises.org) that pretty much gives the so-called "academic" work away for free, because reputable academic publishers aren't interested in such nonsense and don't pay any attention to them. Lots of threads demonstrate all of this. Probably hundreds. Go search for them.

Oh boy, that was fun. I can see why you do it. Assert your way to victory FTW.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
can you critique my posts on shocks, evolution of monetary control, finance (probably not needed here since this wasn't a debate so much as a teaching endeavor), and the last 2 that i dn't remember offhand what they were about?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is your basic belief on shocks that a fast increase in aggregate demand eventually leads to a corresponding recession and that the fed is needed to suppress over production and bolster underproduction?

[/ QUOTE ]

in short, yes. by managing the business cycle, the amplitude of that cycle can be reduced. "overproduction" though is a bit tricky. i'd rather say "production in excess of some limit where the next units produced will be inflationary to a point of pain as a result of instability brough on by large price increases."

but simply put, yes, manageing the businss cycle is a belief of mine as you could guess from my posts.

Barron

[/ QUOTE ]

Barron,

Without going into the details, have you investigated the Austrian business cycle theory?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]

Oh boy, that was fun. I can see why you do it. Assert your way to victory FTW.

[/ QUOTE ]

That would have been a great post, if I hadn't put the argument backing the assertion after the assertion (which of course, you snipped out in your reply).

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Oh boy, that was fun. I can see why you do it. Assert your way to victory FTW.

[/ QUOTE ]

That would have been a great post, if I hadn't put the argument backing the assertion after the assertion (which of course, you snipped out in your reply).

[/ QUOTE ]

Either way, saying "it's been roasted" is nothing more than asserting your way to victory. So I understand why you do it -- it is alot of fun -- but merely because you say "it's been roasted" doesn't mean that a vast majority of respected political philosophers are suddenly on your side. Because I think just the opposite is true -- a vast majority likely hold the tacit consent theory to be valid, and disagree with you. I won't venture a very confident guess, but I'd somewhat confidently suspect at least 70%. And I doubt I need to remind you how few actually adhere to any kind of principles of anarchy, even if they believe tacit consent is bankrupt.

I doubt this needs to be said, but just in case: this is just some intraweb forum. Nothing you say here will ever have an impact so important that it will "roast" such a widely held theory. I know this forum is serious business, but not that serious.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Oh boy, that was fun. I can see why you do it. Assert your way to victory FTW.

[/ QUOTE ]

That would have been a great post, if I hadn't put the argument backing the assertion after the assertion (which of course, you snipped out in your reply).

[/ QUOTE ]

Either way, saying "it's been roasted" is nothing more than asserting your way to victory. So I understand why you do it -- it is alot of fun -- but merely because you say "it's been roasted" doesn't mean that a vast majority of respected political philosophers are suddenly on your side. Because I think just the opposite is true -- a vast majority likely hold the tacit consent theory to be valid, and disagree with you. I won't venture a very confident guess, but I'd somewhat confidently suspect at least 70%. And I doubt I need to remind you how few actually adhere to any kind of principles of anarchy, even if they believe tacit consent is bankrupt.

I doubt this needs to be said, but just in case: this is just some intraweb forum. Nothing you say here will ever have an impact so important that it will "roast" such a widely held theory. I know this forum is serious business, but not that serious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think they would agree that my hotdog distribution scheme is also legitimate and valid? If they do not, can they provide a rationale for why one is legitimate and the other is not, other than might makes right?

The fact that a bunch of inconsistent "thinkers" say something is legitimate doesn't make it true. Your appeal to (inconsistent) authority is really no better than asserting your way to victory.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think they would agree that my hotdog distribution scheme is also legitimate and valid? If they do not, can they provide a rationale for why one is legitimate and the other is not, other than might makes right?

The fact that a bunch of inconsistent "thinkers" say something is legitimate doesn't make it true. Your appeal to (inconsistent) authority is really no better than asserting your way to victory.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not making an appeal to authority, because "appeals to authority" are only fallacious if the claim is that said authority is infallible, which I'm not doing.

I'll gladly concede there's actually a legitimate debate here, and that the authorities I note could be wrong -- contrast that with you, who preposterously claims that tacit consent theory is "roasted" (apparently because a bunch of threads on the 2p2 Politics forum say so...which is frankly hilarious and disturbing you think that would have meaning). I only note that a vast majority of political philosophers disagree to demonstrate how absurd it is to claim that the theory is "roasted"; I'm not suggesting that tacit consent theory is definitively valid because 'authorities' believe it.

So despite the tireless work of the 2p2 ACists furiously typing away in HUNDREDS OF THREADS, I unfortunately don't think you've quite "roasted" tacit consent yet, despite how many fellow 2p2 ACists might think so -- unless the audience that gets to decide the credibility of political theories is limited to 2p2 ACists...in which case, you're right, the theory is completely roasted.

In other news, the JesusCreatedGrandCanyonInFourHours.com message board roasted Darwin back in 1999. HUNDREDS of threads bear this out; because apparently if something gets repeated often, and you assert your way to victory enough, it's all the more credible.

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
in short, yes. by managing the business cycle, the amplitude of that cycle can be reduced. "overproduction" though is a bit tricky. i'd rather say "production in excess of some limit where the next units produced will be inflationary to a point of pain as a result of instability brough on by large price increases."

but simply put, yes, manageing the businss cycle is a belief of mine as you could guess from my posts.

Barron


[/ QUOTE ]

ok so this is one of things I dont really understand. Why doesnt the market reach equilibrium again? Even if the government can smooth out these short term shocks, you seem to be claiming that the market left to its own means will enter into inescapable depression.

[/ QUOTE ]

no. that is not at all what im claiming. specifically i mean that the trough of the business cycle will be prolonged (i.e. is definitely escape-able) and deeper if the economy is "left to its own devices"

Barron