Physiocrat
0
Neutral
- Members
- 207 (0.13 )
- Economics (80 )
- 26-May 06
- 3245
Apr 28 2008 03:07 PM
Previous Fields
Physiocrat
-
Errors in Austrian Economics
30 Oct 2007
QUOTE(Euro @ Oct 30 2007, 09:17 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>If you don't believe me and Sraffa on what this does for Bohm-Bawerk's capital theory, perhaps you'll believe Paul Samuelson.
The phenomenon of switching back at a very low interest rate to a set of techniques that had seemed viable only at a very high interest rate involves more than esoteric technicalities. It shows that the simple tale told by Jevons, Böhm-Bawerk, Wicksell, and other neoclassical writers—alleging that, as the interest rate falls in consequence of abstention from present consumption in favor of future, technology must become in some sense more "roundabout," more "mechanized," and "more productive"—cannot be universally valid.
Just a quick note: Paul Samuelson is probably one of the most hated figures on this board, so quoting him isn't going to do you much good.
After reading some of your posts it is clear that your methodology is clearly flawed. There is no point arguing with you until you realise you are attempting open a tin can with a plastic fork. I suggest Theory and History by Mises and Rational Economic Man by Nell and Hollis. -
How do Darwinians justify ethical prescriptions without providing a qualitative, ontological difference between themselves and amoral animals?
30 Oct 2007
QUOTE(Dynamix @ Oct 19 2007, 05:41 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Or am I just asking the wrong question?
I've been trying to figure out how this makes sense, but all the difference I see between myself and other animals, from a Darwinian paradigm, is an incremental increase in intelligence. But a consciousness increasingly aware of moral concerns does not in itself change the ontological value of my person. Even if it could, the crossover from amoral creature to moral creature is categorical, not incremental, as the alleged shift from ape to human has been.
It's like over the course of billions of years the Species Cup has gradually gotten taller. Now out of the blue somebody says, "Hmm...the color of that cup changed from red to blue." How did that happen?
Somebody fill me in.
Under a purely naturalist evolution system there cannot be a categorical difference between man and animals; as you say it is an increase in intelligence. Now this creates a great problem for moral theorists unless you happen to like Peter Singer. Only under a theistic system, including evolution and creationist theory, is a non-arbitrary distinction between man and animals created: that being they are made in the image of God and have intrinsic worth because of this. If one rejects this and claims that man is distinct and worthy because of his rationality the question arises of small children and mentally handicapped people who are obviously people. The only way to side step this problem is to say that they have potential rationality however working in a purely naturalistic evolutionary system one could equally argue that dolphins, monkeys and even a bacterium have potential rationality and should be endowed with human rights. -
Libertarian Alliance Annual Conference
26 Oct 2007
QUOTE(Inquisitor @ Oct 25 2007, 11:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Hah, it sounds great. The fees aren't that high, IMO at least. But my studies leave little time right now for such events.
Having looked at my options unfortunately I will not be attending; maybe next year. -
What is Economic Growth?
25 Oct 2007
QUOTE(Student @ Oct 25 2007, 09:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I think my boys, FE and quiz, got things covered.
Though I was reading your blog and I can't believe you didn't think Touch of Evil was one of Welles' better flicks. I recomend checking out Lady from Shanghai (except for that one scene in the fun house) or The Magnificent Ambersons (except from some great scenes peppered through out, like the intro) for much worse. But I guess in a way you're right. My favorite Welles film of all time is F for Fake and nothing seems to top it. I think Welles shines most when he engages in non-linear story telling (F for Fake and Citizen Kane).
Welles' best film is the Trial. It is amazing: fantastic imagery, direction and editing. I haven't seen F is For Fake, Shanghai or Ambersons. I will re-watch TOE although I thought it was a bit of style over substance.
What though did you think of the quote from Evil? -
What is Economic Growth?
25 Oct 2007
QUOTE(Inquisitor @ Oct 24 2007, 03:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Wouldn' t the growth of the economy be linked to how intensively capital is used? The more roundabout the modes of production, the greater the quantity of goods produced, if I am correct. Shouldn't this be a sufficient measure in accounting for growth? It may not be able to differentiate between involuntary exchange (unless one is trying to measure valued growth), but it would definitely show an expansion in the economy.
What you say about rounderboutness of production and capital intensity in the production of goods is correct however that only demonstrates that more GOODS have been produced which demonstrates an increase in value. As I said before, Rothbard's suggestions would probably be the best proxies for actually growth. Above though you make a distinction between growth and valued growth- if it is not valued it cannot be considered growth since no growth in non-valued resources can occur due to the first law of thermodynamics.
On a side note Student is conspicuous by his absence on this thread considering his previous thread.
- Member