Australian Economics | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • If you are having trouble logging in to the forum please contact [email protected] // When reseting your password or awaiting confirmation please check that your email is correct and also your junk/spam emails.
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

Australian Economics

Giardiasis

Tiger Legend
Apr 20, 2009
6,293
664
Brisbane
G, serious question, you said when more money is printed it only makes though who it initially goes to wealthier.
does that mean if 'new' money is given to the poor, or to fund services they use- such as public hospitals or schools, printing more money will help reduce inequality?
Perhaps, but not so much by making the poorer wealthier, but by making the wealthier poorer. When the wealthy have access to new money they tend to buy assets, which provides a bigger more stable boost to their wealth than it would had they used the money on consumption as it would be used in your example.

The benefit to the first user of the new money is a short term benefit, they too are hurt by the pernicious effect the money printing has on the production structure and on prices (in the longer term). The poor are the most vulnerable to increases in prices for consumer goods as a much higher portion of their income goes to it.

Why the fixation on inequality? Surely what is of more importance is generally well-being and access to resources to alleviate uneasiness? The poor Australian today has riches far beyond the kings of antiquity.
 
Last edited:

DavidSSS

Tiger Champion
Dec 11, 2017
4,182
4,728
Melbourne
All together now: Property is Sacred.

People have not considered themselves as a piece of self-owned property for millennia, you are just trying to superimpose your view of the world on to everyone else, with no evidence. What a screwed up notion of existence you have. The whole idea of self ownership is just an attempt to locate freedom and liberty as somehow a product of private property. Nothing could be further from the truth, the whole notion of self-ownership is an attempt to justify turning people into a resource to be exploited.

Why the focus on inequality? Maybe because it is unfair.

DS
 

Giardiasis

Tiger Legend
Apr 20, 2009
6,293
664
Brisbane
All together now: Property is Sacred.

People have not considered themselves as a piece of self-owned property for millennia, you are just trying to superimpose your view of the world on to everyone else, with no evidence. What a screwed up notion of existence you have. The whole idea of self ownership is just an attempt to locate freedom and liberty as somehow a product of private property. Nothing could be further from the truth, the whole notion of self-ownership is an attempt to justify turning people into a resource to be exploited.

Why the focus on inequality? Maybe because it is unfair.
Who owns your body David? If you say no-one does, then you are committing a performative contradiction, for you have taken ownership of your body to perform the task of saying as such. The evidence I use is called logic. On what grounds would you have to argue that someone shouldn't be allowed to punch you in the arm?

Unfair? What is unfair about it?
 

DavidSSS

Tiger Champion
Dec 11, 2017
4,182
4,728
Melbourne
No-one owns my body, not everything can be reduced to property relations.

Gia, there is a really large difference between the ideologies we follow.

At the very foundation level of any ideology is an idea, an assertion if you like. From the foundation idea other ideas flow.

The foundation idea of my ideology is freedom. Freedom from want, freedom from coercion, freedom to act as you see fit, freedom for everyone. Freedom is the foundation on which other ideas are built. This is why people like me have been called libertarians for centuries.

The foundation idea of your ideology is property. From this you assert that people somehow own themselves. Then you develop the notion that there are rights people have as a result from owning themselves and that is their freedom. But, the really fundamental difference here is that, in your ideology, freedom is not a foundation idea, it is a second order right which only derives from a truly mangled notion of self ownership. This is why you, and others who follow your strange notions, are not libertarians, you are propertarians. Property is the foundation stone of your ideology, not freedom. It is also why you try and claim the title of libertarians, because you know just how ridiculous and unpopular a propertarian ideology is.

It is just a way to justify turning people into a resource to be exploited.

DS
 

Giardiasis

Tiger Legend
Apr 20, 2009
6,293
664
Brisbane
No-one owns my body, not everything can be reduced to property relations.
How could you possibly make such a statement without taking possession of your body to make it? You have taken ownership of it whether you realise it or not.

Gia, there is a really large difference between the ideologies we follow.

At the very foundation level of any ideology is an idea, an assertion if you like. From the foundation idea other ideas flow.
You don't say?

The foundation of my ideology is logic. Using logic, we can discover axioms. Self-ownership is one such axiom, for any attempt to disprove it actually affirms it. From there we can combine these axioms to the problems we need to deal with. One such problem is resolving conflict in a resource scarce world. Private property rights allow for a logically consistent approach to resolve this problem. It's not a perfect solution because people will have disagreements on the rightful property owner and other people will simply ignore property rights. However, using argumentation to determine the logically consistent answer is the only peaceful method we have. The alternative is physical conflict.

The foundation idea of my ideology is freedom. Freedom from want, freedom from coercion, freedom to act as you see fit, freedom for everyone. Freedom is the foundation on which other ideas are built. This is why people like me have been called libertarians for centuries.
And where does such a foundation idea come from? What do you appeal to, to prove it to be true? Certainly not logic.

Many of these freedoms you speak about will lead to conflict. One person wants to harm you, you want to be free from harm. How do you resolve this? The whole point of private property is to determine the rules of conduct to allow people to avoid conflict as much as possible where these disagreements arise. Your philosophy doesn't address this problem. It is why you have never even attempted to explain how conflicts on resource use are resolved. You just simply wish it away.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

IanG

Tiger Legend
Sep 27, 2004
16,524
817
Melbourne
Interesting interview by Alan Kohler about MMT from a more practical POV:

 

DavidSSS

Tiger Champion
Dec 11, 2017
4,182
4,728
Melbourne
How could you possibly make such a statement without taking possession of your body to make it? You have taken ownership of it whether you realise it or not.

How can I take possession of something which is not outside of myself, this is nonsensical. I do not possess myself, I am myself. I am also not some piece of property to be bought sold or rented out - to consider a human being a bit of property is pure ideology.

The foundation of my ideology is logic. Using logic, we can discover axioms. Self-ownership is one such axiom, for any attempt to disprove it actually affirms it. From there we can combine these axioms to the problems we need to deal with. One such problem is resolving conflict in a resource scarce world. Private property rights allow for a logically consistent approach to resolve this problem. It's not a perfect solution because people will have disagreements on the rightful property owner and other people will simply ignore property rights. However, using argumentation to determine the logically consistent answer is the only peaceful method we have. The alternative is physical conflict.

Oh right, your ideology is based on logic. What, on iron laws of nature or somesuch rubbish? Gee, where have I heard that before? Where have I heard anyone say that their theory is based on logic, that no other conclusion could possibly be reached?

Oh, that's right, those dialectical materialists generally claim the same sort of certainty, and also posit society must be organised according to their insights. You might know them as Marxists. You should be familiar with them since you have the exact same ideological certainty that they come with. You are just so so similar, in so many ways - ideological certainty, adherence to a correct line, detailed prescriptions for how people should live their lives, detailed prescriptions to how society must be organised, ideological purity which allows you to claim that your ideology has never been tried properly so the impact of free markets can't really be judged (substitute socialism for free markets and it reads the same).

And where does such a foundation idea come from? What do you appeal to, to prove it to be true? Certainly not logic.

It is a philosophical position. Your philosophical base is property comes first. Freedom is only a concern because of some twisted notion that human beings are pieces of property owned by, the piece of property itself (makes no sense and defies logic). You are a propertarian.

Many of these freedoms you speak about will lead to conflict. One person wants to harm you, you want to be free from harm. How do you resolve this? The whole point of private property is to determine the rules of conduct to allow people to avoid conflict as much as possible where these disagreements arise. Your philosophy doesn't address this problem. It is why you have never even attempted to explain how conflicts on resource use are resolved. You just simply wish it away.

Why would someone want to harm me? Unless they are given a reason to do so, they won't want to harm me. The whole point of removing private property is to remove a major incentive to harm others.

As for the free market solution to scarcity, well that's a great success isn't it?

We live in a world where in the USA 72% of the personal wealth is held by the richest 10% of people, who also earn 47% of income, the top 1% own 36% of the total wealth and make 20% of the total income. Meanwhile the bottom 50% of the population of the USA have 0.2% of wealth and get 12.7% of income.

We live in a world where people are starving while others die of obesity related diseases.

We live in a world where there is enough energy falling on the planet as solar energy to power everything, there's abundant wind energy, abundant tidal energy and much else besides. But we dig up non-renewable and polluting fossil fuels instead and harm the only planet we have.

This is the world the free market solutions of the propertarians creates, no wonder there is conflict.

DS
 

Giardiasis

Tiger Legend
Apr 20, 2009
6,293
664
Brisbane
How can I take possession of something which is not outside of myself, this is nonsensical. I do not possess myself, I am myself. I am also not some piece of property to be bought sold or rented out - to consider a human being a bit of property is pure ideology.
Why does something have to be external to your physical body for you to take possession of it? If a kidney has been transplanted into your body is it internal or external? Can you only take possession of a body part if it is removed from your body? Saying you don't possess yourself, you are yourself, is obfuscating the properties relevant to action. You use your body to act and in doing so you are controlling it, possessing it, claiming ownership of it.


Oh right, your ideology is based on logic. What, on iron laws of nature or somesuch rubbish? Gee, where have I heard that before? Where have I heard anyone say that their theory is based on logic, that no other conclusion could possibly be reached?

Oh, that's right, those dialectical materialists generally claim the same sort of certainty, and also posit society must be organised according to their insights. You might know them as Marxists. You should be familiar with them since you have the exact same ideological certainty that they come with. You are just so so similar, in so many ways - ideological certainty, adherence to a correct line, detailed prescriptions for how people should live their lives, detailed prescriptions to how society must be organised, ideological purity which allows you to claim that your ideology has never been tried properly so the impact of free markets can't really be judged (substitute socialism for free markets and it reads the same).
You are using argumentation to make your points. What basis do you claim your arguments to be valid? I claim logic is the basis for the truth to my claims. If you can identify an error the logic of my arguments, you can disprove them. Otherwise you are dabbling in metaphysics.

You argue that a problem with my position is that I claim it to be true. Do you not also make the same claim about your position? Your attempt to liken my position to marxism doesn't invalidate it.

It is a philosophical position. Your philosophical base is property comes first. Freedom is only a concern because of some twisted notion that human beings are pieces of property owned by, the piece of property itself (makes no sense and defies logic). You are a propertarian.
Yes it is a philosophical position, but to what do you appeal to, to claim it to be valid? It looks to me like you are appealing to metaphysics. Freedom as you put it is a concern because of scarcity, not because of property frameworks.


Why would someone want to harm me? Unless they are given a reason to do so, they won't want to harm me. The whole point of removing private property is to remove a major incentive to harm others.

As for the free market solution to scarcity, well that's a great success isn't it?

We live in a world where in the USA 72% of the personal wealth is held by the richest 10% of people, who also earn 47% of income, the top 1% own 36% of the total wealth and make 20% of the total income. Meanwhile the bottom 50% of the population of the USA have 0.2% of wealth and get 12.7% of income.

We live in a world where people are starving while others die of obesity related diseases.

We live in a world where there is enough energy falling on the planet as solar energy to power everything, there's abundant wind energy, abundant tidal energy and much else besides. But we dig up non-renewable and polluting fossil fuels instead and harm the only planet we have.

This is the world the free market solutions of the propertarians creates, no wonder there is conflict.
You are simply naive to think that no one would want to harm you. Scarcity is a reality of existence, disputes over resource use are inevitable. Private property provides an incentive to not harm others because it provides a rule book to follow to determine the just owner of a resource. Without it, the determination is simply left to who is the physically stronger.

David, compare places with private property frameworks to places without one throughout history. The evidence is overwhelming, private property frameworks lead to vastly higher levels of prosperity and well-being compared to the alternative. You have no credibility to argue otherwise.
 

DavidSSS

Tiger Champion
Dec 11, 2017
4,182
4,728
Melbourne
Nice of you to cite evidence and provide . . . well . . . none.

If you want to be treated like an object as opposed to a sentient being, I suppose that's your choice. I don't want to be treated like an object.

Your position that private property somehow stems from logic is just ideology, you just keep on claiming that your ideology is the one true way if it keeps you happy.

DS
 

Midsy

I am the one who knocks.
Jan 18, 2014
2,944
700
48
London
Not necessarily Australian Economics thing, but what does releasing £150billion into the UK economy do for us? Gives the government more money to spend but weakens the value of the £ against other currencies?

Bank of England injects extra £150bn into economy https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54817872