Bridge-building, public relations and tribalism | In defense of anagorism

n8chz, I appreciate your thoughtful input.

Just to clarify, I do not believe "that the root is always the state." I think the problem is cultural. With that said, it is correct to say (if I understand your point) that we fall short of our potential by subjugating the will of others, regardless of the way in which that subjugation takes place.


Bridge-building, public relations and tribalism | In defense of anagorism

Mutualists believe...

Mutualists believe that prices of goods and services should be limited (not by government) to the costs involved in their supply. But what is cost?

Will Schnack, if I recall correctly, I think Carson in "Studies in Mutualist Political Economy" emphasizes that cost is the limit of the equilibrium price. If that's the case and perfect equilibrium is not possible, wouldn't some profit always exist?

Mutualists believe...

Krugman and depression economics

I meant that once weaker capitalist producers were eliminated in a slump and debts were written off, the remaining capitalists would be able to make a profit and realise it as competition would be less and costs lower.

But it seems that the capitalists who were hardest hit by the recession where those in the real estate, construction, and financial services sectors, which were reaping greater profits than most and driving economic growth the past decade.


Krugman and depression economics � Michael Roberts Blog

Krugman and depression economics

Thanks for posting your review. I have not had a chance to read it myself.

I think you are spot on to mention that Krugman does not address the role of profits in an economy.

I am not sure what you meant when you said "profitability (relative to remaining value) will then rise and allow the process of accumulation to resume." Does this mean that capitalists are concerned with increasing their rate of return on investment rather than their nominal profit?


Krugman and depression economics � Michael Roberts Blog

Challenge the content of the social contract, not the concept.

How do you respond to the clever counter argument "Its a legitimate contract because you don't have to go by it, you can just leave if you don't like it".

Roderick Long has argued that the "love it or leave it" argument already assumes what it is trying to prove, that the territorial and legal jurisdiction are valid.


ijustino comments on Challenge the content of the social contract, not the concept.

Re: I had an Argument over Welfare

twoliberaldudes:

Other person: but the word hazard means dangerous, therefore it is bad.

Me: No, the changed incentive structure would be beneficial, as the hazard in this case is very unlikely

-rdub

Just to clear things up, there are a variety of ways in a free society to provide a social safety net, including mutual aid and private charity (as opposed to government charity).

Is it your opinion or is it a fact that welfare does not encourage more people on net to drop out of the labor force?

Re: I had an Argument over Welfare

Ron Paul and The Libertarian Idiocy.

There are many points I would take issue with, but I think at the heart of the author's disagreement with libertarianism is his belief that there is an irreconcilable conflict between the rights of individuals and the common good (or general welfare).

Part of what libertarians are arguing is just what the common good consists of. As libertarian Tom Palmer puts it, the common good is a "system of justice that allows all to live together in harmony and peace; a common good more extensive than that tends to be, not a common good for 'all of us,' but a common good for some of us at the expense of others of us."

In any case, I appreciate the author bringing attention to ideas of libertarianism, if for no other reason to allow myself and others to correct some misunderstandings.


Ron Paul and The Libertarian Idiocy. : ThyBlackMan.com