Libertarian RMB

WA Delegate: The Free Land of Caskadea (elected 1 day 21 hours ago)

Founder: Whipjangle

World Factbook Entry

Huzzah! Huzzah! Huzzah! This region proved no match for a charge by The Black Riders!

Occupied by LinkThe Black Riders! Our lair can be found Linkhere.

Into the battle rode the following riders:
Lord Nuke Is So Kewl
Cora II

Embassies: The Black Riders.

Tags: Featured, Medium, Founderless, and Invader.

Regional Power: Moderate

Libertarian contains 28 nations, the 454th most in the world.


Today's World Census Report

The Least Corrupt Governments in libertarian

World Census officials visited a range of government departments and recorded how frequently bribes were required to complete simple administrative requests.

As a region, libertarian is ranked 5,612th in the world for Least Corrupt Governments.

#NationWA CategoryMotto
Page:  «  1  2  3  »

Regional Happenings


Libertarian Regional Message Board

Lmao that doesn't dispel his arguments though if only it did, it seems he operates from the the Kaldorian or MMT strands of Post Keynesianism.

He has even convinced Murphy to abandon the idea of a natural rate of interest after showing the purpose of Sraffas critique of Hayek.

Interest rates (the "s" is important) should be decided by lenders (lending out REAL SAVINGS - not credit-money bubble) and borrowers - it a matter of time preference.

Once someone has lent out real savings (i.e. actually made a sacrifice-of-consumption) they do not have this money any more - till when and IF the money is paid back.

The way banking works in this government backed Central Banking (credit bubble) world is all wrong - from top-to-bottom.

Lending money should be just that - lending actual money (the sacrifice of consumption - real savings), not "crediting to the account" and so on.

As for "Sraffa" - this would be the Italian P. Straffa who mixed the absurdities of Keynesianism with the absurdities of Marxism.

There is no point (none) in discussing matters with people who think that someone like P. Straffa is adding anything serious to a debate (and debate on anything).

Yes that is "ad hominem" - and that is a perfectly legitimate way of saving time. If one establishes that someone is no good one does not then have to waste time considering every single they say.

Take interest rates.

If one does not accept the central principle that all lending should be from real savings (and that savers do not have the money after it has been lent out - till when, and IF, it is paid back, i.e. that two different parties can not have the same money in different places at the same time) then it is a waste of time talking with them further.

I often disagree with the late Murray Rothbard - but he was right on money and banking.

Leaving aside J.M. Keynes, Nicky Kaldor, P. Straffa and other people who made no contribution to economics.

It is not true that most hereditary lords are "inbred" (that was a feature of some Royal families - it was not a feature of aristocracies, a very different thing).

Here (unlike economics) empirical evidence is key.

And the British aristocracy (not "the Royals" who tended, in the past, to marry other "Royals" a gene pool that was too restricted) tend to be physically and mentally above the average population.

Of course there are exceptions, for example the Spencer family whom the Queen insisted that Prince Charles marry into, are known for their tallness and physical bravery - but also for mental instability. They (over generations) have tended to judge with their hearts - not their minds.

However, if you actually meet a "Lord" - check to see if he is "life" one or an hereditary one.

If he is a "life" one he is likely a retired politician (so check your wallet) - but an hereditary lord is likely to be O.K.

Although beware the English habit (especially true among old fashioned people) of hiding intelligence.

Someone may know multiple languages (and give the impression of only knowing English) and claim to be "just a farmer" - and then turn out to have a detailed knowledge of engineering and so on.

Natural rates (again - please not the "s") of interest are based on the time preference of real savers (those who are sacrificing consumption) and borrowers - the interest rate is based on losing the money for X period of time (why give up money if you are not paid to do so? - the interest rate is the payment), and the risk of not getting the money back at all (the risk of default).

OF COURSE the "natural rate of interest" is not operating under present (credit bubble) conditions - but that is because present conditions are wrong (from top to bottom), not just the Central Banking (the Bank of England, the Federal Reserve and so on)but the way the supposedly private banks work also. "Crediting to the account" - rather than lending money.

Till banks go back to being actual money lenders (stop pretending that the same money can be with different parties in different places at the same time) the system will continue to be a mess - and banks will not fundamentally change their practices (even if it was legal for them to do so), whilst government backed Central Banks keep pushing their folly.

Clue - money you have "on deposit" is NOT in the bank (if it was how could the bank pay you interest?), you do NOT have this money, it has been lent out.

Sadly credit expansion means that vastly more "money" is lent out than was ever really saved (those who deny this - "broad money" is bigger than the "monetary base" and the only way that can happen is via credit expansion - i.e. what ordinary people would call FRAUD, book keeping tricks).

An interest rate should be what you are prepared to give up your own savings for.

Think about it - you are being asked to lend money (your savings) to "Mr Jones" - what would you want to know?

You would want to know - "how long for?", "what is the chance that Mr Jones will not pay me back - will default", and "what interest rate is Mr Jones prepared to pay?"

That (your talks with Mr Jones - on his chances of repaying the loan and what he is prepared to pay for the use of your money over a certain period of time) is the "natural rate of interest".

Keep at the level of "methodological individualism" (as with the example of you and Mr Jones).

Any attempt to put in "macro concepts" is wrong.

That should have been please NOTE the "s".

There is (or should not be) no single rate of interest.

Different interest rates are correct for different periods of time and for different borrowers. What are they borrowing the money FOR - what is the chance of their new factory (or whatever) succeeding?

Some borrowers should not be offered any rate of interest - likely defaulters. Such as the people who the "Community Reinvestment Acts" forced banks to throw money away on.

And also how much interest is going to be sufficient payment for you to give up your savings?

Some people will be more risk adverse than others - people (and money lending enterprises - "banks" do weird stuff rather than acting as money lenders) will compete on interest rates.

Of course - where real savings have been replaced by credit-money expansion, none of the above applies, because the whole capital structure is fu**ed - totally (and hopelessly) distorted.

The ABCT is based on malinvestment of resources due to the central bank lowering interest rates below the Wicksellian natural rate of interest. What Sraffa demonstrates to Hayek in his critique is that there is no such thing as the natural rate, Lachmann then makes a valid contribution that there could me multiple rates but Robert Murphy demonstrates that this isn't sufficient & that the ERE needs to be abandoned in favor of a Dynamic Equilibrium construct.

So I understand everything you're saying but it doesn't actually address Sraffas & the Post Keynesian critique. I suggest reading the critiques because I'm not excellent at explaining it.

Also you have constructed a strawman with Sraffas thought he is a NeoRicardian which overlaps with Post Keynesian & Neo Marxian. However the only reason it overlaps with Marxian is because Karl Marx also derived some of his thought from the classical economists like Ricardo but that is a loose connection through one man.

One thing that I have seen most apparent that the Post Keynesians have shown is the deep connection between the Neoclassical & Austrian which is troubling to me & some of the Post Keynesian critiques are moving me closer to Lachmann & the radical subjectivists.

I'm not defending the post Keynesians however the only one I admire is Shackle but other than that I think the best way to break them is to rip apart the general theory which has already been done by Hazlitt & Hayek but no one really knows about the critiques they made so we should work towards bringing them to light.

Are we going to take back our region and change the factbook?

You folks in the WA need to endorse someone that will be an active delegate and maybe consider a password for the region.

Hayeks model has proven wrong, just like Marx's.
Friedman's were far more accurate.

Forum View

by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics