Is the price worth it?

parsig9

https://mises.org/wire/coronavirus-panic-trillion-dollar-paternalism-cash-bunkers

Love the Austrian's asking the tough and unpopular questions.
Our liberty and property rights are being jeopardized and the Leviathan that is the state grows.

In an age where popular Keynesian thought has taken hold, is there still room for freedom?
As many call for price controls is it not obvious that the solution to falling prices is lower prices?

Charles

Suspect the US fund market has lost $5-7 trillion so far?

Old_Joe

"The Austrians"- Right out of the Ayn Rand/Charles Koch playbook: I got mine... screw you.

LewisBraham

The "Austrians" seem to hate government intervention except when it's to bail them out when their free market grab-everything-that's-not-nailed-down machinations blow up in their faces and they claim to be too big to fail. Capitalism on the way up, socialism on the way down, but socialism only for the rich. Everybody else gets "rugged individualism" and the Austrians get their panties in a twist about the "moral hazard" and "nanny state" when it's the average person who needs help and bailouts. I have a couple of four letter words that I think the Austrians deserve but I'll keep them to myself.

expatsp

@LewisBraham +1

Old_Joe

I'd be fascinated to see the opinions of von Mises and Hayek had they become seriously ill, lost their jobs, fallen behind on their mortgages, and been evicted from their homes.

parsig9

I think there is a misunderstanding of Rand's self interest and Austrian school. The rent seekers who go to gov. with their hand out are nothing more than leaches. They are not liberty loving people or Austrians. It is the duty of government to limit this, as it misdirects taxes. But they do not. And why? On the issue of landlords, is in their interests, or those of their tenants to price rent so low, or make it free? Will this free rent encourage others to produce affordable housing? Do those who can not pay have a right to the property or skills of others?

It is government not individuals who have led us to war and debt? Is it noble and just to sacrifice one's self for the "crisis". Isn't t this what monsters like Stalin ask?

I am not for bailouts.

If my neighbors become sick I should be free to help them, and would. I would not want the state to compel me to or take my property to do so.

WABAC

I think people tend to conflate libertarians and Austrians with a lot of other people and ideas on the right.

But hey. I know "conservatives" that think I'm a downright "communist" because I voted for some Democrats.

Politics are closer to an M* style box than they are to a L-R spectrum.

LewisBraham

@parsig9 Google the term "rentier." You don't have to go to the government to be a "rent seeker." In fact, more often than not the rent seekers have nothing to do with the government, earning profits off other people's backs while doing no labor at all. Did you drive on a public road in the past year, go to a public school, respect your police and fire department and military? This notion that you're an island or "bootstrapper" and the government has no right to take a percentage of "your property" for the services it has provided to you and your family is fallacious. And as for wars, guess who often profits the most off them? It isn't the government. As for healthcare, Americans pay more for private health insurance and pharmaceuticals per capita than any other nation in the world and have shorter life expectancies than almost every other developed nation with "socialized medicine."

parsig9

That is not what rent seeking is in the modern sense of the term. That is how the term first came about.
You don't have to do manual labor to add value. Investors, inventors and others add plenty too.
Some moderate taxation is useful for services.
It is government that benefits, through getting more power and $ from the other half of their often corrupt symbiotic relationship. (Haliburton)
The military is often grossly misused and squandered (Iraq).

Can one not despise government and corporate corruption?
We are currently saving and supporting both with record debt.

Neocons like their political opponents that you describe, are not liberty loving free market sorts.
They are statists. They are both on the right. (I do like the "M" idea)



More on rent seeking. Last four paragraphs really.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidmarotta/2013/02/24/what-is-rent-seeking-behavior/#22f23e81658a

Crash

"...You don't have to do manual labor to add value. Investors, inventors and others add plenty too..." I don't bet you're talking about strictly manual labor, like picking crops? I wonder what Nicola Tesla might say, after losing the battle with Edison. If he added value, he surely did not see the lion's share that he ostensibly had coming to him.
(Investors add value? No. Investors drive up prices. Or they lose money, when they're wrong.)

LewisBraham

Investors who do not invest in the primary market via venture capital or initial public offerings for stocks or bonds add almost no value to society. They are merely trading paper between each other in the secondary market for capital companies already have. The only value they have is as a liquidity source for other rentiers. And rentier as a term is most certainly used as it was originally intended today. Unless someone is providing new capital to a company and that company is using that capital to grow its business--not buying back stock or paying dividends to other investors--investing is pure rent seeking, producing nothing beneficial to society at all. Libertarianism is a garbage philosophy that fails under even a modicum of scrutiny and Ayn Rand was an odious person.

Crash

+1. You said it beautifully.

parsig9

Is liquidity not enough value? The results of investing produce a lot. Are the profits from investing detrimental too? What about an investor who creates a private foundation with his profits? Or a library? Who cares what private companies do with their money. Pay dividends or do what they like. Invest. Their obligation is to share holders. If the service is not good customers will go elsewhere. Choice. It's crony capitalism that's the problem. I am getting the feeling I am alone in believing in freedom and consequences. Why control buybacks or bankruptcy? Let it go. Someone else will buy it or fill the gap somehow if there is a market assuming the powerful state will allow it and not make it impossible with licenses and regulation. Hey, maybe if you had a friend in the government you could get a little break!!!\

Crash, Edison was corrupt and corrupt government protected him and ignored him too long. The book Empire of Light is great and describes the battle with Westinghouse.

From Don Mathews

The social engineer is by nature arrogant and self-righteous. What else but arrogance and self-righteousness would lead him to think that he is fighting the good fight by using government coercion to engineer society as he sees fit? But the social engineer is more than just arrogant and self-righteous. He is also a con artist.

It is tempting to compare the social engineer to the snake oil salesman, but the snake oil salesman would take offense at that. Rightly so. The social engineer is more depraved. The snake oil salesman serves up phony medicine for real ailments. The social engineer serves up phony medicine for phony ailments. His patient is the body politic. He gets the body politic to take the phony medicine by tormenting the body politic into thinking it’s sick. Where the body politic notices a blemish, a stretch mark or an ingrown hair; the social engineer sees illness, sickness and disease--which he calls Crisis, Social Injustice and National Tragedy. He berates the body politic with warnings that it’s riddled with Crisis, Social Injustice and National Tragedy; and when the worn down body politic finally yields, the social engineer crams his medicine down its throat. His medicine is always intrusive, and very expensive.

LewisBraham

@parsig9 Your definition of "freedom" is entirely subjective and it is arrogant to think you're the only one who believes in "freedom and consequences." There is a difference between freedom from want and freedom to want. Some prefer the former over the latter. And in unfettered free market capitalism with no taxes or regulation you end up with most people wanting a lot they can't have but desperately need. If a person doesn't have access to affordable healthcare, they don't feel free the moment they get sick and go bankrupt as a result. And "consequences?" Next thing you'll be telling us about "personal responsibility." But really what you mean is "personal responsibility for you but not for me," personal responsibility for the alcoholic but not the alcohol manufacturer you invested in and profited from, or the opiod addict but not the pharma companies and doctors pushing the drugs. As for private foundations, the money used for them could just as easily be taxed to feed, educate and heal people instead of vanity projects which most foundations are used for. As far as social engineers go, if you think what occurs at any blue chip company on a daily basis isn't a form of social engineering, you're delusional. The choice isn't between government control and freedom as libertarians claim. The choice is between government control and corporate control and since the early 1980s the corporations have most certainly been winning, controling almost every aspect of daily life. The problem with that is corporations aren't democratically elected so they do as they please. Finally, the corporation's first duty wasn't always to shareholders. In the original history of corporate charters, a corporation had to be shown to be beneficial to society to exist. This shareholders' first and screw every other stakeholder--employees, consumers, the environment, government--ideology is a relatively recent historical phenomenon.

davidrmoran

jeez, who is this bozo mathews ? that is fine prattle, and in boldface no less!

msf

LewisBraham said:

Finally, the corporation's first duty wasn't always to shareholders. In the original history of corporate charters, a corporation had to be shown to be beneficial to society to exist. This shareholders' first and screw every other stakeholder--employees, consumers, the environment, government--ideology is a relatively recent historical phenomenon.

It's not just history. It is, as noted in the excerpt below, quid pro quo. Corporations are creations of the state, and are granted limited liability. That's a form of bailout (socialized losses) for corporation owners (shareholders) that partnership owners (partners) don't get. These days, it seems most people recognize that you don't get a bailout without strings attached.

Corporate status is conferred upon a business by state law (statute) when a state issues the business a charter of incorporation. The protective shield of corporate status enables businesses to socialize their losses in a way that traditional proprietorships and partnerships are not able to do. Socializing a loss is a means to amortize it or spread it out over society in general, so the owners do not absorb it individually. Amortization is similar to the idea behind insurance, in which many people bear a small share in a loss, rather than one or a few people bearing all of it. Therefore, it is accurate to say that society enables corporations to exist, both by passing laws that create them and by limiting the financial risk exposure of their owners. Since our society grants for-profit businesses the right to incorporate and make unlimited profits with limited liability, a reasonable person could conclude that corporations owe a debt to society in return. Corporations’ quid pro quo—a Latin term meaning this for that—is acceptance of corporate social responsibility, to benefit the many stakeholders to whom corporations may owe a duty, including customers, the community, the environment, employees, media, and the government

https://opentextbc.ca/businessethicsopenstax/chapter/corporate-law-and-corporate-responsibility/

msf

WABAC said:

I think people tend to conflate libertarians and Austrians with a lot of other people and ideas on the right.

But hey. I know "conservatives" that think I'm a downright "communist" because I voted for some Democrats.

Politics are closer to an M* style box than they are to a L-R spectrum.

Try looking at The Political Compass
https://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2

If you want to see where you come out on this political grid, there's a "test" you can take. The site "strongly recommends that you take it before viewing" the page cited above. Emphasis in original.
https://www.politicalcompass.org/test

WABAC

msf said:

WABAC said:

I think people tend to conflate libertarians and Austrians with a lot of other people and ideas on the right.

But hey. I know "conservatives" that think I'm a downright "communist" because I voted for some Democrats.

Politics are closer to an M* style box than they are to a L-R spectrum.

Try looking at The Political Compass
https://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2

If you want to see where you come out on this political grid, there's a "test" you can take. The site "strongly recommends that you take it before viewing" the page cited above. Emphasis in original.
https://www.politicalcompass.org/test

Thanks MSF. That's exactly the site I was thinking of before it skipped my mind to look for it..

I don't know where I was the last time I did this. These days I'm ESE of Gahndi.

>>Edit>> Found it on another website I hang out on. Back in September 2004 I was further north. About where Dvorak is. https://www.politicalcompass.org/composers

Old_Joe

That was fun. I wound up right next to Gandhi, which I would never have expected. Thanks for that!

OJ

Anna

I was a tad more left and a tad more libertarian than Gandhi. Oh my!

Crash

I've done it before. No change. I'm just a bit to the Left of Ghandi, in that same green box.

parsig9

Incorporation is meant to protect ownership, entrepreneurs, so to encourage the starting of business. It is not a gateway to public ownership of the means of production. I don't really have the legal background but I know our LLC offers similar protection. Without this, the risk of startup is too great. If you can't self insure, you're sunk. It's really not very reasonable that one should have to get permission from the state to create a business at all. State license does not make the business better or guarantee competence. It's just a way to misuse capital. There are plenty of terrible professionals and firms that are licensed.
I really do not understand such resentment of ability and it's natural rewards on an investment site. Entrepreneurs create business, not the hinderance of state law and bureaucracy. Those of you participating in this discussion obviously have different experience from me. I live in rural Michigan where there are no big corporations and people do not generally feel the victims of them. Here people love to own land to hunt or ride on and many work for or own small businesses.

To the original point, are we just going to hunker down, wait out the depression and pray for a cure, or what? If so, that's not much of a plan.

Crash

Resentment? Speaking for myself, I'd just call it being realistic. Business, particularly BIG Business, will never police itself. I suppose that's ONE reason that businesses must be licensed. (It can be absurd, I'll grant you: like the time my friend started a photography shop and was required to get a license just to have people come in, to have their picture taken.) That way, gov't knows who's there and who's not. And taxes have to be paid. By individuals and businesses. Libertarians wish we were not all connected in a society, but we are. Yet, I hasten to add that there ARE some idiotic rules, laws and regulations. No doubt about that.

LewisBraham

@parsig9

It's really not very reasonable that one should have to get permission from the state to create a business at all.

Oh horses--t. Seriously. If you want to start a business selling products people consume that could theoretically kill them such as filthy food, faulty drugs, or products that are dangerous or just snakeoil ripoffs that don't work, you damn better well be licensed and regulated by the state. And if you want to employ people, lock them in your basement to create a sweatshop or generally abuse, sexually harass, and underpay them, the state has every right to know what's going on in your business. And if you want to not pay any corporate taxes to operate a business while enjoying public roads to ship and receive your products, state operated military, police and fire protection and employing workers who've been educated by the state, you damn well better get permission to do so. The idea that you're living on some island and don't have to get permission simply because you're operating a business is absurd. Regulations and licenses exist for good reasons.

Old_Joe

Stern note to follow...

WABAC

I live in rural Michigan where there are no big corporations and people do not generally feel the victims of them. Here people love to own land to hunt or ride on and many work for or own small businesses.

Do they form LLC's to enjoy all of that? I can look out the window at my garden that I own without having formed an LLC to do so.

Incorporation is meant to protect ownership, entrepreneurs, so to encourage the starting of business.

Sounds to me like you want it both ways.

But once you admit the government into the process of encouraging you to do what you want to do without messy restrictions, all of the citizens are invited to ask the same from their government, and have an opinion contrary to yours.

If you have a complaint about licensing, take it up with the citizens in your town that are licensed. They may not care to have just anyone parachute into town claiming to be a doctor, realtor, surveyor, barber, veterinarian, or whatever your fellow citizens have asked to be licensed.

Just like you, they are looking to government for encouragement of their efforts and protection from the vagaries of life.

davidrmoran

parsig9 said:

State license does not make the business better or guarantee competence. It's just a way to misuse capital. There are plenty of terrible professionals and firms that are licensed.
I really do not understand such resentment of ability and its natural rewards on an investment site. Entrepreneurs create business, not the hindrance of state law and bureaucracy. Those of you participating in this discussion obviously have different experience from me. I live in rural Michigan where there are no big corporations and people do not generally feel the victims of them. Here people love to own land to hunt or ride on and many work for or own small businesses.

- state licensing came about to help prevent incompetence. You know, a lot of regs are like that. Not to guarantee anything at all, really.

- out there in rural land, asks this ex-rural-buckeye, are y'all eating your own deer and cattle and crops? or forming small coops to do so?

we assume you (and your service providers) use the highways and the connectivity to post here, and all that. so not accusing you of being libertarian nor as unhinged / imbalanced as mathews, ...

but seriously, how much of a principled loner are you and yours?

not seen 'resentment of ability and its natural rewards' here, actually.

parsig9

Not sure if I want it both ways but I see your point. I think of it more as the philosophical side about what is the best way to have a society and the necessary and practical side based on current law. One side is more interesting to discuss than the other.

Crash

Philosophical. "That gov't is best which governs least." Thoreau? Emerson? I forget. But it's bullshit. Maybe it made a BIT more sense way back then... Laws have a purpose, and it's clear that most laws are enacted in response to some awful situation where people are being harmed or taken advantage of, in one way or another. Forethought is never a priority. (Pity.) But then you have some situations, for a period of time, when greed and avarice are allowed to take over, and good laws get repealed. (Just go talk to Asshole Phil Gramm and his tong.) At least I'm glad we don't operate here in the US like they do in The Philippines, for instance, where bribery and even petty graft are taken for granted, right down to the level of one's very own local neighborhood. "OK, you passed the test, you'll get your license in 90 days. Oh dear, 90 days?! Here's a few pesos. ...Alright, then. You'll have it in 48 hours." Real Justice and the Law, when it comes to weightier matters, are barely on speaking terms, actually. They are very much disconnected. That's because the Law is owned and operated by Vested Interests, bent on protecting those vested interests.

davidrmoran

@Crash,
Ray Gun's damage, which was hardly new, was ginormous and has been sooo longlasting

@parsig9,
Thoughtful reflective response seriously appreciated