Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Time To Reflect?


Recommended Posts

Inflation alone is not sufficient, the main plank of this approach is based on the 80's dismantlement of labour's collective bargaining institutions.

It seems to me that structurally the process of globalisation and the process of introduction of women into the workforce are both factors which are supportive of increased returns to capital at least for a time, so I'm not sure to what degree that this reality could actually have been 'suppressed' any more than one could suppress rising returns to labour in cases where a labour shortage develops.

As long as the fundamental factors supporting increased returns to capital are in place then one would expect an expansion in inequality to be the result (and be sustainable in the sense of the trend not breaking down), but the fly in the ointment here is that globally, inequality has been falling for decades.

Obviously if things are "unaffordable" for the majority of the global population the trend must reverse but declining global inequality suggests that things have been getting more affordable for the average global worker, not less. So for the global elite (including EM elite) things have got much more affordable. For EM workers, things have got quite a bit more affordable. For the rest of us, more expensive.

However the significant returns to the top few % are IMO mostly linked to corporate tax evasion. The 'sublimation of money' trend has mainly temporarily enriched bankers and the boomer generation but these gains will be given back over the next few decades, and I don't think the 'peak debt' trend in and of itself necessarily implies impoverishment of anybody or any particular sector.

Erm corporations are created by the tax/CB paradigm.

They don't dodge tax, they ARE tax.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 461
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Nope - a price signal is a signal of refusal and acceptance. Any violence for any reason whatsoever by anyone at all disturbs that signal.

Doesn't matter how needed for political or other reasons that violence is, it will mess up the signal. This is a fact, unavoidable fact.

Of course the degree of Law & Order affects the "price signal"! But that is just sensible. And weak L&O is one of the main causes of many countries' under-development and even extreme poverty. Most investors will not invest in dangerous places.

Sorry mate, but the idea of land ownership itself is ********, completely non empirical. By default all humans can wander anywhere they fancy and this can only be prevented. The only way to fix it from a market point of view is to not have any land ownership at all.

:o

Care to explain that, please??

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course the degree of Law & Order affects the "price signal"! But that is just sensible. And weak L&O is one of the main causes of many countries' under-development and even extreme poverty. Most investors will not invest in dangerous places.

Nope - law and order itself disturbs the price signal.

Because "law and order" are themselves forms of violence. It doesn't matter a gnats ***** how sensible you think all this is either, it still disturbs the underlying economies price signals.

:o

Care to explain that, please??

Sure.

TO have land ownership you need

1) To pretend that the real world is divided up into little squares called "land."

2) Shoot anyone who doesn't pretend along with you.

As free markets are venues where if you refuse no physical harm then ensues land ownership is not and never can be part of a free market.

The only way you can have exclusivity to a patch of the earth without violence is if you pay the people you want to not go there to not go there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Steve Keen analysis rings a lot of bells but it occurs to me that we're loosing sight of the root cause of the crisis (no not London according to Tim Geithner).

Am I alone in thinking that the majority of todays woes fall squarely on the shoulders of the Federal Reserve and in particular Greenspan's policy of holding base interest rates at low (negative in real terms).

It seemed obvious to me in 2002 that this was going to lead to a global financial disaster so you can be assured they knew too!

No. Your cause is still proximal and too singular.

In the end it boilds down to no single cause other than extended application of innate human cupidity and stupidity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

(...)

As free markets are venues where if you refuse no physical harm then ensues (...)

Oops, stop right there. How do you ensure that? 'Cause if you/nobody ensures that, in a free for all market you would actually have lots of bullies, conmen, even thieves and armed robbers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope - a price signal is a signal of refusal and acceptance. Any violence for any reason whatsoever by anyone at all disturbs that signal.

Violence does not "disturb' the price signal, it is the price signal. Without it there is no ownership and thus no price. You may assert that you have spent 100 hours raising vegetables and thus they are worth 100 hours of my time. I assert that it will take me one hour to pick them and thus they are worth just 1 hour and that they are not "your" vegetables. I am not even sure that there is such a thing as "the one true price" let alone that deviation from it, should it exist, is always a bad thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oops, stop right there. How do you ensure that? 'Cause if you/nobody ensures that, in a free for all market you would actually have lots of bullies, conmen, even thieves and armed robbers.

This socio-political argument for the state isn't relevent - any violence, fraud etc disturbs the price signals of the economy. It doesn't matter how neccessary you think they are or which person in the economy acts violently, the disturbance occurs anyway.

Do you understand this simple point?

The physical, real world price signalling between real people breaks down when violence is used by one or more of them, it doesn't matter which people or what they are being violent for.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Violence does not "disturb' the price signal, it is the price signal. Without it there is no ownership and thus no price. You may assert that you have spent 100 hours raising vegetables and thus they are worth 100 hours of my time. I assert that it will take me one hour to pick them and thus they are worth just 1 hour and that they are not "your" vegetables. I am not even sure that there is such a thing as "the one true price" let alone that deviation from it, should it exist, is always a bad thing.

A price signal is the point at which one trader voluntarily accepts the offer of another, though he is free to refuse without getting physically attacked.

That is all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope - law and order itself disturbs the price signal.

Because "law and order" are themselves forms of violence. It doesn't matter a gnats ***** how sensible you think all this is either, it still disturbs the underlying economies price signals.

Sure.

TO have land ownership you need

1) To pretend that the real world is divided up into little squares called "land."

2) Shoot anyone who doesn't pretend along with you.

As free markets are venues where if you refuse no physical harm then ensues land ownership is not and never can be part of a free market.

The only way you can have exclusivity to a patch of the earth without violence is if you pay the people you want to not go there to not go there.

This I think is where your argument falls down Injin - you argue the moral case that land is free, and you can only stop others going on it.

It's no different to suggesting that the fruits of your labour are yours and yours alone. The question I would ask is why? why should you morally be entitled to something that you have produced? It makes no sense if you are also saying that you are not entitled to a patch of land that you can call your own.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This I think is where your argument falls down Injin - you argue the moral case that land is free, and you can only stop others going on it.

It's no different to suggesting that the fruits of your labour are yours and yours alone. The question I would ask is why? why should you morally be entitled to something that you have produced? It makes no sense if you are also saying that you are not entitled to a patch of land that you can call your own.

Oh, you are entitled to stuff you call your own. If someone walks on your beansprouts they should pay for replacements etc

I see no moral justification to hallucinate areas of the earth have magic lines on them and then shoot others for crossing them.

It breaks the first rule of ethics - it can't be universally applied to mankind.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This socio-political argument for the state isn't relevent - any violence, fraud etc disturbs the price signals of the economy. It doesn't matter how neccessary you think they are or which person in the economy acts violently, the disturbance occurs anyway.

But it was you who said that "(...)As free markets are venues where if you refuse no physical harm then ensues(...)". Now you agree with me that violence could/would come from non-state actors.

Do you understand this simple point?

Frankly, no. If you are not talking about the real world, then what are you talking about??

The physical, real world price signalling between real people breaks down when violence is used by one or more of them, it doesn't matter which people or what they are being violent for.

Interesting choice of words there, "real world", because in the real "real world", as I wrote above, and you accepted it, one needs Law & Order to prevent other acts of violence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A price signal is the point at which one trader voluntarily accepts the offer of another, though he is free to refuse without getting physically attacked.

That is all.

You may believe so, but you still wasted 100 hours growing vegetables, cause someone else nicked them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But it was you who said that "(...)As free markets are venues where if you refuse no physical harm then ensues(...)". Now you agree with me that violence could/would come from non-state actors.

Yes. And?

Frankly, no. If you are not talking about the real world, then what are you talking about??

I am talking about the real world.

Interesting choice of words there, "real world", because in the real "real world", as I wrote above, and you accepted it, one needs Law & Order to prevent other acts of violence.

Nope. Law and order is an act of violence itself - which ******s with the price signals.

I am not making a socio political argument here, nor am I saying get rid of the state or any of that (I do elsewhere but for moral reasons) here I am simply outlining what happens to the price signal in an economy when violence or fraud is used within it.

Who does that fraud or violence is completely irrelevent, whether it is legal or not is irrelevent. The signal is broken, distorted. If we turn ou tto need a state, one of the things we will have to learn to live with is the fact that the state completely ******s the economy periodically and there is nothing that can be done about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You may believe so, but you still wasted 100 hours growing vegetables, cause someone else nicked them.

Which ******s with the price signal.

That's all I am saying - theft, force and fraud mess with price signals.

A very simple concept, a very simple and obvious fact.

Link to post
Share on other sites

(...)

I am not making a socio political argument here, nor am I saying get rid of the state or any of that (I do elsewhere but for moral reasons) (...)

Thank you.

(...) here I am simply outlining what happens to the price signal in an economy when violence or fraud is used within it.

Who does that fraud or violence is completely irrelevent, whether it is legal or not is irrelevent. The signal is broken, distorted. If we turn ou tto need a state, one of the things we will have to learn to live with is the fact that the state completely ******s the economy periodically and there is nothing that can be done about it.

You are putting things completely different inside the same category. You wouldn't see any difference between:

1) Legitimate regulation by a competent government, with

2) Random acts of murderous violence by gangs of deranged yobs.

This is unrealistic.

Of course there are no perfect governments or perfect regulations, but developed countries do offer a much better quality of life than in the Ivory Coast, or Sierra Leone, or Congo.

Please see this page (very real "real world") : http://www.globalissues.org/issue/83/conflicts-in-africa

.

Edited by Tired of Waiting
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Steve Keen analysis rings a lot of bells, but it occurs to me that we're loosing sight of the root cause of the crisis (and, no it's not London as suggested by Tim Geithner).

Am I alone in thinking that the majority of todays woes fall squarely on the shoulders of the Federal Reserve, and in particular Greenspan's policy of holding base interest rates at low levels (they are negative in real terms).

It seemed obvious to me in 2002 that this was going to lead to a global financial disaster so you can be assured they knew too!

(EDITs - what is it about iPads that make you post with more errors)

I agree (although the repeal of Glass-Steagall didn't help either). After the dot-com crash and 9-11 it became obvious that the Fed's solution to any market jitters was to slash interest rates and the only way for banks to get an "acceptable" yield would be through fraud.

You can argue that a readjustment was due anyway - but the "not on my watch" attitude taken by central bankers and politicians at the time ensured that any downturn would turn into a crisis.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree (although the repeal of Glass-Steagall didn't help either). After the dot-com crash and 9-11 it became obvious that the Fed's solution to any market jitters was to slash interest rates and the only way for banks to get an "acceptable" yield would be through fraud.

You can argue that a readjustment was due anyway - but the "not on my watch" attitude taken by central bankers and politicians at the time ensured that any downturn would turn into a crisis.

Sure, but why the country - Britain as a whole - could not see, and stop, the huge bubble growing? What failed?

I mean: Yes the politicians were pressed by voters (and bankers?) to keep the party going. But how come these voters (and shareholders), the nation as a whole, could not see the dangers? What failed? Was it too technical? Academia failed? The specialised/financial press? The popular press? The BBC?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you.

You are putting things completely different inside the same category. You wouldn't see any difference between:

1) Legitimate regulation by a competent government, with

2) Random acts of murderous violence by gangs of deranged yobs.

in the real world, there is no difference.

This is unrealistic.

Nope. What is unrealistic is calling idenitcal actions different.

Of course there are no perfect governments or perfect regulations, but developed countries do offer a much better quality of life than in the Ivory Coast, or Sierra Leone, or Congo.

Please see this page (very real "real world") : http://www.globalissues.org/issue/83/conflicts-in-africa

.

Price signals don't care about any of this stuff, or political ideology.

If force or fraud is involved in a trade, the price signals are corrupted. This means that ALL taxes and regulations hamper economic development and lead to malinvestment. End of story.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, but why the country - Britain as a whole - could not see, and stop, the huge bubble growing? What failed?

I mean: Yes the politicians were pressed by voters (and bankers?) to keep the party going. But how come these voters (and shareholders), the nation as a whole, could not see the dangers? What failed? Was it too technical? Academia failed? The specialised/financial press? The popular press? The BBC?

Huge amounts of violence.

Taxes, regulation and fiat money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, you are entitled to stuff you call your own. If someone walks on your beansprouts they should pay for replacements etc

I see no moral justification to hallucinate areas of the earth have magic lines on them and then shoot others for crossing them.

It breaks the first rule of ethics - it can't be universally applied to mankind.

Yes but your distinction is completely arbitrary - why is something I made "mine"? Because Injin says so?

Why is that piece of land that I have fenced off not mine? because Injin says so?

I can see no logical difference. There is something there that I lay claim to.

Although I have made something, I can only stop somebody else taking it by the use of force. By your definition, that is wrong?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes but your distinction is completely arbitrary - why is something I made "mine"? Because Injin says so?

Why is that piece of land that I have fenced off not mine? because Injin says so?

I thought I made it plain I do not support the concept of land?

Things can be said to be yours IF you have done something with them to change their state.

I can see no logical difference. There is something there that I lay claim to.

Although I have made something, I can only stop somebody else taking it by the use of force. By your definition, that is wrong?

Nope.

It's perfectly fine if it's something you made. I'd argue there is a difference between defence and attack. Land is an attack.

Did you create the earth?

Can you create invisible lines on that earth?

No? Then you can't claim them then (not logically or morally at any rate.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought I made it plain I do not support the concept of land?

re-read my post - never said that you did support the concept of land.

Things can be said to be yours IF you have done something with them to change their state.

I've changed the state of this piece of land, by putting a fence around it. I've changed this piece of wood by chopping it down and making it into planks. I've changed all the trees in this woodland by carving my initial into them.

Nope.

It's perfectly fine if it's something you made. I'd argue there is a difference between defence and attack. Land is an attack.

Did you create the earth?

Can you create invisible lines on that earth?

No? Then you can't claim them then (not logically or morally at any rate.)

Did you create that tree / the coal / anything that you use?

Did you create that fertile field through years of toil, careful management, crop rotation and fertilisation? That woodland that I made mine by changing the state of all the trees - well, that was some blokes who carefully researched where the trees could be planted, where they would best grow, and spent years protecting them from pests and disease and the harsh winters when they were saplings.

See, to my mind your distinction is pretty arbitrary.

Your philoso[phy seems to be based on two rules as far as I can see:

1. Do not use violence to achieve your aims;

2. Compensate people when you use / destroy something of theirs?

However, to protect yourself of rule (1) you then have to use...violence to do so. Possibly by the ose of some form of government? To enforce rule (2) you also need some form of protection - an authority who will arbitrate. Otherwise, it just comes down to whoever has the biggest guns.

There is no distinction as far as I can see between something that you can find (like a piece of land) and something you have made. you are still denying sobebody else of its use.

To use your words, we are all born to take and use anything we like. This includes things made by the labours of others. You can only prevent other people from doing so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

re-read my post - never said that you did support the concept of land.

I've changed the state of this piece of land, by putting a fence around it. I've changed this piece of wood by chopping it down and making it into planks. I've changed all the trees in this woodland by carving my initial into them.

Then you are entitled to the fence, not the area it encloses. And I'd go further, you are entitled the the value of the fence if someone else breaks it, but not the eternal presence of it, unviolated.

Did you create that tree / the coal / anything that you use?

Did you create that fertile field through years of toil, careful management, crop rotation and fertilisation? That woodland that I made mine by changing the state of all the trees - well, that was some blokes who carefully researched where the trees could be planted, where they would best grow, and spent years protecting them from pests and disease and the harsh winters when they were saplings.

See, to my mind your distinction is pretty arbitrary.

Your philoso[phy seems to be based on two rules as far as I can see:

1. Do not use violence to achieve your aims;

2. Compensate people when you use / destroy something of theirs?

However, to protect yourself of rule (1) you then have to use...violence to do so.

Nope. You can use cosial obliquy, withdrawl of service contracts and a lot of other stuff without swinging a fist at all.

And you see - that field of yours? The crops on it you own. The space you don't. if someone comes and tramples them, then they obviously owe you. But that's ok, maybe they are tramping them to do something even more productive than you are, and you can be easily paid off once they are through. They don't owe you their permanent lack of presence in an area by default.

Possibly by the ose of some form of government? To enforce rule (2) you also need some form of protection - an authority who will arbitrate. Otherwise, it just comes down to whoever has the biggest guns.

There is no distinction as far as I can see between something that you can find (like a piece of land) and something you have made. you are still denying sobebody else of its use.

To use your words, we are all born to take and use anything we like. This includes things made by the labours of others. You can only prevent other people from doing so.

But only one case has any logical or moral justification for it. (i.e. taking made stuff is wrong, taking stuff that is just there isn't)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.