Posts Tagged ‘Quick Questions’
A Couple Quick Questions, Ed. 15
Posted on January 14, 2012 at 5.34 pm
Q. Under the Austrian School of Economics, and indeed by the predictions of its proponents, the huge, expansionary policies of the Federal Reserve should be causing run-away Inflation. Indeed, the cry for years has been to warn of dire hyperinflation should any of the no in place expansionary policies by tried. Yet this flies in the face of what we have seen, namely price stability (save for rising Oil Imports) resulting in an entirely normal inflation rate of 3%. How do you square this with your avowed Austrian view? — Whimsical Eloquence, from tumblr.
A. Most of my answer can be summed up in this graphic:
As you can see, the value of the dollar has steadily declined over the course of the last hundred years. It was also on the decline before then. If you’d like to play with the numbers on a year-by-year basis, try this inflation calculator. As the results of my calculation put it, “What cost $1 in 1900 would cost $25.85 in 2010. Also, if you were to buy exactly the same products in 2010 and 1900, they would cost you $1 and $0.04 respectively.”
That’s a lot of inflation, especially considering the lowering of prices which has been produced by technological advances, economies of scale, etc. Moreover, as you mentioned, I subscribe to Austrian economics, which sees inflation not primarily as a rise in prices — the rising prices are merely a symptom of the underlying problem of the (fiat) growth of the money supply, which has grown precipitously. Learn more here.
Q. I like Ron Paul, for the most part, however why do Ron Paul fanatics never mention his millions of dollars in earmarks he asks for (and mostly receives) every year? — The Modern Patriot, from tumblr.
A. I’m not sure that it’s accurate to say that this issue is “never” mentioned. On the contrary, it’s brought up quite regularly as a supposed “gotcha” ostensibly showing Dr. Paul is not as consistent as he’s cracked up to be. This is far from the case, especially as even his harshest detractors on the subject admit that “Paul’s campaign-finance record shows little indication of a politician who is tied to special interests. Individuals have provided the vast majority of his campaign cash, supplying 91 percent of the money since his first bid for office.”
Here’s a speech (including transcript — and on a pro-Ron Paul website, by the way) of the congressman explain his reasoning behind his stance on earmarks. The shortest version of his argument is that, constitutionally, he’d rather see money appropriated by Congress than the executive branch, so he puts in the earmarks his district requests and then votes against them because he doesn’t want the money spent at all.
Q. How can you legitimately believe that you are supporting the preservation of liberty when you are against taxes on the rich and for deregulating our economy. There is the freedom to do something and then there is the freedom from something. In the case of corporations, the question is whether they should have the freedom to exploit their workers and consumers without consequences, or whether the workers and consumers should have freedom from this exploitation. For whatever reason you side with the corporate opinion. Your attempt at forming a philosophy based around anti-authoritarianism has completely ignored the authority that capital accumulation gives the rich. There is nothing “libertarian” or “hip” about supporting neoliberal economics. — David, from the internet.
A. Woah, woah, woah. So many unfounded assumptions here. Let’s start at the end: The title of my tumblr is very much tongue in cheek based on some amusing Google Analytics results I got one time.
But moving back to the beginning, let’s go through these accusations one by one.
1. How can you legitimately believe that you are supporting the preservation of liberty when you are against taxes on the rich and for deregulating our economy. Well, I’m actually against taxes for everybody, not the rich in particular. As for deregulation, the rest of your question indicates that you have rather different ideas about the nature and consequences of this idea than I do. As it happens, the economic mess we’re in now is not due to a lack of regulation.
2. There is the freedom to do something and then there is the freedom from something. In the case of corporations, the question is whether they should have the freedom to exploit their workers and consumers without consequences, or whether the workers and consumers should have freedom from this exploitation. For whatever reason you side with the corporate opinion. Do we really have to go through this again? I am not advocating special benefits for corporations. I am not transferring trillions from the poor and middle class taxpayer to Wall Street. I am not permitting the wealthy to get away with fraudulent activity without prosecution. The government — the entity you want to give more control over our economy — is. My goodness, what do they teach in schools these days?
3. Your attempt at forming a philosophy based around anti-authoritarianism has completely ignored the authority that capital accumulation gives the rich. I’ve argued above that it hasn’t, but I’d contend that yours has. You object to the government using its powers to give special favors to its rich friends, but you want to give the government more of those same powers. Do you really think the rich friends won’t come knocking again? Really? I find that I am the more suspicious of the wealthy of the two of us.
A Couple Quick Questions, Ed. 11
Posted on July 14, 2011 at 3.43 pm
Q. I was wondering if you’ve heard about Obama’s move to release a ton of oil from our nation’s “Strategic Reserves.” Will this be a significant leg-up for our economy, or is this just some kind of political stunt to garner support from a falling administration?
Personally, I don’t believe that it will effect prices at the pump very much, notwithstanding the silliness of the idea of a “strategic reserve.” — Michael, from the internet.
A. I hadn’t heard about this, so for the others who also may now know the details, here are the basics of the situation:
The Obama administration said Thursday it has approved the largest ever release of oil from the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve to boost the global economic recovery hampered by rising gas prices.
The release of 30 million barrels of oil is half of a joint effort with the International Energy Agency. Despite the scale, the U.S. release is the equivalent of less than two days’ worth of domestic oil consumption and about three days of oil imports.
It sounds like the effects of this will be minimal given how little oil it actually is when considered on the scale of our national consumption, and, like you, I doubt this move will do much to change gas prices. Sounds like a stunt to me.
Q. Obviously you have a favorable opinion of Ron Paul, but I wonder what is your opinion of Republican candidate Herman Cain? He seems to mirror a lot of the stances Paul takes on issues. Ignoring the fact that he is not well known across the country, do you think Cain has a chance in the election? — cogitativitae, from tumblr.
A. Cain is a former Fed chairman, not antiwar (indeed, clueless about foreign policy), supports the PATRIOT Act, bizarrely paranoid about Muslims, and supported/still supports TARP…so I really wouldn’t say he’s close to Ron Paul on the issues at all — at least, aside from imitating him in rhetoric, but that’s par for the course in this field of candidates.
As far as having a chance, no, I don’t think he does. He’s been losing campaign staffers and, from what I’ve heard, generally fading fast as a viable contender. I could be wrong, of course, but that’s how it looks at this point.
Q. I would like it if you would follow these links and share you opinion on this topic. I prefer if you do so on tumblr. Thank you. Article and video here. — Pedro4thevote, from tumblr.
A. I saw the video you referenced, in which a woman was forcibly removed and arrested at a town council meeting while alleging corruption, a few days ago as it took off across the internet. Now reading the article you cited, it seems as if the town’s mayor is validating her claims:
The far western Arizona town of Quartzsite was in disarray Monday after the town council ousted the mayor from power and declared a state of emergency, all over an online video that shows a woman being arrested….
[Mayor Ed Foster] described the government and Gilbert as corrupt and abusive of their power, and said all their recent actions are frantic efforts to cover up millions of dollars of money from lining some of their pockets.
Foster concludes the article by saying: “Every time you get into a political thing like this, it always goes back to money.” And he’s right — which is why this story is sad and concerning, but not surprising.
I guess my thoughts here are very similar to my thoughts on what’s at stake with conspiracy theories: At most, we prove that the government lies and does terrible things. Well…we already knew that.
A Couple Quick Questions, Ed. 10
Posted on June 9, 2011 at 6.08 pm
Q. Hey Bonnie, My question lies with the following site: whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com. I received it as a rebuttal after stating that Bin Laden’s capture should not warrant the reelection of Obama and should not be considered the “ends justify the means” to our nation’s spending problem. I am reading through it and I am not sure whether it is propaganda or true for the matter. I have asked a few other bloggers this question as well. Thanks in advance! — Kaeside, from the internet.
A. From what I know of that site, it’s all at least nominally accurate and each claim provides a source. The two critical questions to ask are:
- Is the whole story presented, or has the truth been carefully presented to imply something which isn’t actually true?
- If the statement is not at all misleading, is what he did actually a good thing?
So for instance, in answer to the first question, let’s consider this specific claim: Obama issued an executive order to close the prison at Gitmo. Yeah, he signed the order, but 2.5 years later the Guantanamo Bay prison is still very much up and running. Without going through the entire site, I suspect you’ll find many such “true” claims.
As far as the second question — well, I guess that depends a lot on your politics and your partisanship. Consider whether Obama’s achievement was merely impressive or actually good. Consider whether it was constitutional. Consider whether it added to future generations’ debt. Consider the hidden costs which may not be obvious at first glance. And most definitely ask those who disagree with you to consider how they’d feel if the exact same policy — particularly if it’s concerned with war or big business — was enacted by George W. Bush.
For quicker response, just link them here.
Q. If one considers the ultimate goal of anarchy to be a removal from hierarchy through supreme personal freedom, wouldn’t corporations and any other non commune organization destroy this ideal through hierarchy in workforce and further destroy it by the employers ability to almost indefinitely control the workers salary and working conditions. — blissfulsuffering, from tumblr.
A. I noticed that you asked the same question of Coeus (and have to take exception at the idea that I “couldn’t” answer the question! — I just couldn’t answer it right then) and thought both her original reply and follow-up were very well-put. So I’ll only add a few things:
First, I’m not an anarchist myself, so I can’t say I’ve spent a whole lot of time considering the practical outcomes of a system I don’t personally advocate. Second, is the objective outcome of anarchy freedom from hierarchy? I’ve always understood the generic term to be much more concerned with absence of government and other forcefully-imposed, involuntary authorities.
Third, as Coeus said, I don’t share your interest in perfect equality outside the legal realm. I don’t think it’s necessary for everyone to have equal wealth or authority, for instance. Finally, I do think we’d agree on the importance of voluntary involvement in economic arrangements. I’d also argue that with a smaller government and freer market, lacking all the corporatism and subsidies which are currently so pervasive, would tend to produce a less hierarchical business world in which the largest companies would not be nearly so large and powerful. And that would be a good thing.
Q. In your perfect world would an individual be able to secede from the government and just live in their same house w/o gov’t services and tax free? — nellieblystunad, from tumblr.
A. Probably, but I doubt it would matter. Here’s what I’ve written on the subject before.
Maybe also check out the other stuff in the anarchy section of my FAQ for a couple articles which, among themselves, also address different aspects of this question.
(more…)
