Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
As for doing drugs, well when you end up crashing into my house or end up in the ER with medical bills I have to pay for your sorry ass....well then you just violated my rights.
So now I am a bit perplexed as Friedman, Williams, and Sowell are all three monetarists as opposed to the Austrian school. George Mason University, which you mentioned, is the poster university for monetarism theories.
GMU is not an advocate of monetarism. Go read some of the publications from the Mercatus Center and Veronica de Rugy. Hardly monetarism at all.
GMU and the Mercatus Center is not an advocate of keynesianism but does not dismiss out of hand monetarism any more than it dismisses Austrian economics. Monetarism and Austrian economics share basic concepts of liberty, free market, and denouncement of inflation. The only way they seriously differ is in the Austrian belief that the economy cannot be forecast and that recession and adversity is necessary for market correction. Monetarism advances a theory that the central bank can take appropriate measures to control the rate of inflation and thereby provide more stablility in the economy.
I'm working from memory here, but I think you'll find Friedman, Williams, and Sowell embracing concepts from both while rejecting Keynesianism, but those three gentlemen were all monetarists. You do know that Williams is a Professor of Economics at GMU and at one time was department head? Of course there wil be debates and differences of opinion within any good university re various theories.
I have a M.A. in economics with additional years studying doctoral economics at a prominent environmental economics university. Unless, you study at George Mason or Loyola University, you will no be expose to Austrian economics. My knowledge is self-initiated, not learned in the classrooms.
In fact, I witnessed my economics professors claiming that we are saving too little, that too low of interest rates initiated by Fannie and Freddy do not cause moral hazard, and over two years ago I witnessed my macroeconomics professor jumping out of his seat and heralding that we are back at the steady rate when I took my concerns to him that our 6.2% economic growth rate was artificial.
it is truly disturbing to say the least.
So you would subscribe to the Milton Friedman/Walter Williams schools of economics? I had some college courses, but those two have educated me far better on the theories involved than anything I got in college.
When it comes to economics, Ron Paul is pretty close to that particular school of thought though I think he is lacking in some basic nuances that have to be considered.
No, Friedman is a kook. He is responsible for neoliberalism and the Chicago School style of economics which the Austrians severely disagree with. For example, when have Austrians ever advised monetarism?
I like David Friedman (Milton's son) and his work on free market anarchy.
Sowell is ok.
Most people do not understand free market arguments as espoused by the Austrians. Instead, the Chicago school and neoliberalism dominates free market ideologies, in which the Austrians severely disagree with. Unfortunately, many people do not realize this.
When/if you say you have an MBA, I won't doubt you for a second.
Excellent post.
I have a M.A. in economics with additional years studying doctoral economics at a prominent environmental economics university. Unless, you study at George Mason or Loyola University, you will no be expose to Austrian economics. My knowledge is self-initiated, not learned in the classrooms.
In fact, I witnessed my economics professors claiming that we are saving too little, that too low of interest rates initiated by Fannie and Freddy do not cause moral hazard, and over two years ago I witnessed my macroeconomics professor jumping out of his seat and heralding that we are back at the steady rate when I took my concerns to him that our 6.2% economic growth rate was artificial.
it is truly disturbing to say the least.
Would you vote for Ron Paul?
Not if he runs on the Republican Ticket. If he were to run for the Conservative Party or the Libertarian Party and he had no shot at winning then I might.
As far as I am concerned, no Rep or Dem get my vote until the parties themselves start putting this country ahead of the party.
Immie
.
As for doing drugs, well when you end up crashing into my house or end up in the ER with medical bills I have to pay for your sorry ass....well then you just violated my rights.
Mr Stupid Fuck, Sir:
Libertarians do not ask that you pay for someone else's medical bill. The demopublicans do.
How is it that you don't mind paying for the Iraqi, Afghan and, coming soon to a neighborhood near you, the Pakistani Wars.
How is it that you don't mind paying for persecuting, prosecuting and the imprisonment of 2,400,000 inmates ?
.
Libertarians are thieves.
They want to live here and use all of the amenities of our country...roads...hospitals...Fire..police etc..etc...
They just don't want to pay for anything. OR pay for the regulation of anything. Hey fuckwits...Daniel Boone was a myth. If ya wanna be self sustaining ...make a fortune and buy an island.
Libertarians are thieves.
They want to live here and use all of the amenities of our country...roads...hospitals...Fire..police etc..etc...
They just don't want to pay for anything. OR pay for the regulation of anything. Hey fuckwits...Daniel Boone was a myth. If ya wanna be self sustaining ...make a fortune and buy an island.
1.) Name a libertarian who thinks government shouldn't collect taxes.
2.) Learn how to debate like a grown up.
Libertarians are thieves.
They want to live here and use all of the amenities of our country...roads...hospitals...Fire..police etc..etc...
They just don't want to pay for anything. OR pay for the regulation of anything. Hey fuckwits...Daniel Boone was a myth. If ya wanna be self sustaining ...make a fortune and buy an island.
1.) Name a libertarian who thinks government shouldn't collect taxes.
2.) Learn how to debate like a grown up.
#1 N/A
#2 So you deny that you are a dodo head with stinky poopy breath?
Libertarians are thieves.
They want to live here and use all of the amenities of our country...roads...hospitals...Fire..police etc..etc...
They just don't want to pay for anything. OR pay for the regulation of anything. Hey fuckwits...Daniel Boone was a myth. If ya wanna be self sustaining ...make a fortune and buy an island.
1.) Name a libertarian who thinks government shouldn't collect taxes.
2.) Learn how to debate like a grown up.
Rand's view of libertarians
Ayn Rand condemned libertarianism as being a greater threat to freedom and capitalism than both modern liberalism and conservativism.[8] Ayn Rand regarded Objectivism as an integrated philosophical system. Libertarianism, in contrast, is a political philosophy which confines its attention to matters of public policy. For example, Objectivism argues positions in metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics, whereas libertarianism does not address such questions. Rand believed that political advocacy could not succeed without addressing what she saw as its methodological prerequisites. Rand rejected any affiliation with the libertarian movement and many other Objectivists have done so as well.[9]
Rand said of libertarians that:
"They are not defenders of capitalism... I've read nothing by a Libertarian (when I read them, in the early years) that wasn't my ideas badly mishandledi.e., had the teeth pulled out of themwith no credit given."[8]Responding to a question about the Libertarian Party in 1976, Rand said:
"The trouble with the world today is philosophical: only the right philosophy can save us. But this party plagiarizes some of my ideas, mixes them with the exact oppositewith religionists, anarchists and every intellectual misfit and scum they can findand call themselves libertarians and run for office."[10]
Libertarians are thieves.
They want to live here and use all of the amenities of our country...roads...hospitals...Fire..police etc..etc...
They just don't want to pay for anything. OR pay for the regulation of anything. Hey fuckwits...Daniel Boone was a myth. If ya wanna be self sustaining ...make a fortune and buy an island.
Libertarians are thieves.
They want to live here and use all of the amenities of our country...roads...hospitals...Fire..police etc..etc...
They just don't want to pay for anything. OR pay for the regulation of anything. Hey fuckwits...Daniel Boone was a myth. If ya wanna be self sustaining ...make a fortune and buy an island.
1.) Name a libertarian who thinks government shouldn't collect taxes.
2.) Learn how to debate like a grown up.
Rand's view of libertarians
Ayn Rand condemned libertarianism as being a greater threat to freedom and capitalism than both modern liberalism and conservativism.[8] Ayn Rand regarded Objectivism as an integrated philosophical system. Libertarianism, in contrast, is a political philosophy which confines its attention to matters of public policy. For example, Objectivism argues positions in metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics, whereas libertarianism does not address such questions. Rand believed that political advocacy could not succeed without addressing what she saw as its methodological prerequisites. Rand rejected any affiliation with the libertarian movement and many other Objectivists have done so as well.[9]
Rand said of libertarians that:
"They are not defenders of capitalism... I've read nothing by a Libertarian (when I read them, in the early years) that wasn't my ideas badly mishandledi.e., had the teeth pulled out of themwith no credit given."[8]Responding to a question about the Libertarian Party in 1976, Rand said:
"The trouble with the world today is philosophical: only the right philosophy can save us. But this party plagiarizes some of my ideas, mixes them with the exact oppositewith religionists, anarchists and every intellectual misfit and scum they can findand call themselves libertarians and run for office."[10]
source
FYI
I've discussed taxation with objectivist libertarians who posit that ALL TAXES are theft.
This is the extemist version of Libertarianism which believes that
1. society does not exist and has no right to self protection from ther actions of any person
2. That the entire world and all services ought best to be left to the invisible hand of the market to mold and control as the market sees fit.
They ALSO tended to confuse their POV as having something to do with "natural rights".
So, while I totally agree that not all libertarians take this position, know that SOME people claiming to be LIbertarians definitely DO take that position.
Ron Paul consistently won the post debate polls. He has won several polls on this board.
So why do the Repubs turn around and run some loser putz in the elections?
So now I am a bit perplexed as Friedman, Williams, and Sowell are all three monetarists as opposed to the Austrian school. George Mason University, which you mentioned, is the poster university for monetarism theories.
Friedman held that economics, even on the macro scale is empirical in nature, that it can be tested and predicted.
If that is Friedman POV it is, I think, overstating the power of the dicipline
At best economics is useful as a predictive tool equivalent to that of the science of meteorology.
It can give you some benefit sometimes, if something completely unexpected doesn't happen.
But as economics is not the study of inanimate objects, but rather the study of human beings, (humans who respond to changes in the economy, and by doing so change the economy) its predictive value is rather limited.
Von Mises and Hayek held that the human factor makes such a view folly.
Ultimately the market consists of people, who will do unpredictable things and therefor economics cannot be considered empirical.
Also, I think a tad overstated.
While certainly human behavior plays an enormous part in MACRO, some of the standard tools of macro-economic will work under relatively stable economic circumstances.
The shorter the projection, the more likely that economics can indicate the consequence of some change it is studying.
But when the herd instinct take over? No telling where that will lead an economy precisely because society can CHANGE THE RULES of their economy at will.
Von Mises particularly promoted Praxeology, economics as a moral and philosophical pursuit rather than as a scientific pursuit.
In that sense I am 100% with him. (and as an aside, you have now forced me to study Von Mises)
Economics is quite rightly a dicipline that belongs in the SOCIAL SCIENCES precisely because it is the study of HUMAN behavior within an artifically constructed environment we call society.
Economics, depsite all its love of metrics, is NOT a hard science.
It is a soft science..
Ron Paul consistently won the post debate polls. He has won several polls on this board.
So why do the Repubs turn around and run some loser putz in the elections?
Ron Paul consistently won the post debate polls. He has won several polls on this board.
So why do the Repubs turn around and run some loser putz in the elections?
The Repugnants seek power for power's sake. They are willing to use demagoguery if that will get them elected.
.
Ron Paul consistently won the post debate polls. He has won several polls on this board.
So why do the Repubs turn around and run some loser putz in the elections?
The Repugnants seek power for power's sake. They are willing to use demagoguery if that will get them elected.
.
They had a much better chance of winning with Paul than McCain.
