Talking Politics

[DavidSSS]

It is not a hypothesis, that is the methodology of empirical science. It is a logically deduced universal law derived from the human action axiom (I.e. human action is purposeful behaviour).

Aah yes, empirical science, the people that bring you findings based on evidence rather than fanciful deductions. It certainly has its attractions. Sadly not for economists.

Economists are very good at creating internally consistent models, pity how they bear little resemblance to reality.

Do you have any evidence that fixing a minimum wage leads to less employment? Supposition is not good enough. Hard evidence or it is just a hypothesis.

DS

 

[Giardiasis]

Aah yes, empirical science, the people that bring you findings based on evidence rather than fanciful deductions. It certainly has its attractions. Sadly not for economists.

Economists are very good at creating internally consistent models, pity how they bear little resemblance to reality.

Do you have any evidence that fixing a minimum wage leads to less employment? Supposition is not good enough. Hard evidence or it is just a hypothesis.

DS

I take your deletion of the rest of my post as a concession of my ideas on homesteading and colonisation.

Ok just to clarify, you like empirical science but you think economics is crap. Yet before you were happy to appeal to Keynesian economics in your argument. So you obviously like empiricism within economics. So when you are referring to economists with internally consistent models I assume you aren’t referring to Keynesian economists because obviously they don’t have internally consistent models. You’re referring to real economists that use the correct methodology of economics, praxeology.

I see you have made the old “good in theory bad in practice” claim well that doesn’t fly fella, if something is bad in practice it is bad theory. The theories of capitial, entrepreneurship, interest, business cycles, etc. from the Austrian school all bear witness in reality such as correctly predicting hyper inflation in Weimar Germany, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the GFC to name a few.

You’re very confused with your last paragraph. You ask me to provide hard evidence (I assume you mean empirical evidence) when I’ve already told you it can’t prove anything in economics and then if I don’t provide it then it is a just a hypothesis which is again, not the methodology of economics (get your accusations straight!). I’ll try and re-word it for you perhaps it will sink in this time. Empirical science involves hypothesis testing by falsifying the hypothesis using reproducible experimentation. This works for things that are governed by constant relations and have few influencing factors. Economics involves much more complicated things that are not governed by constant relations, I.e. human action. Knowledge in economics can be deduced through reasoning based on axioms that cannot be denied as trying to argue against the action axiom for example presupposes its existence. From there, we can deduce subjective value theory, comparative advantage, diminishing marginal utility, markets, money, prices and eventually price fixing’s effect on supply and demand.

The claim is this: The praxeological view is that the minimum wage law will raise unemployment higher than it would otherwise be, in the absence of this law, other things equal, provided only that it is set above the level of productivity of at least one worker. Unless you want to argue that workers whose productivity is worth less than the minimum wage can stay employed throughout the economy following wage fixing, I suggest you take the claim seriously. The evidence is pure logic and no empirical evidence can refute or prove it. No amount of empirical evidence can disprove that 52 + 60 = 112, the same holds for praxeological economics. All you can do is attempt to find an error in the logical deduction.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

1. Sure but just because there might be little in the way of unoccupied land this doesn’t mean the homesteading principle becomes invald. It is still useful to determine who the correct owner is because people don’t live forever. E.g. someone was the first owner of a parcel of land and then had that land stolen from them which was subsequently sold to someone else. Well that first owner has rights as long as they are alive but if they do not leave a benefactor then clearly the land belongs to the 3rd party. This is the situation I think applies to Australia and the America’s in the majority of cases.

Fair Gia. But this smuggles in a legal system in the background to put all of this in practice. And it forces the people who are not of that system to adhere to it, the original inhabitants. If they don't accept the validity of that system what happens? (I think you hint at what happens below)

2. There is certainly an element of arbitrariness to determine that, which is what common law attempts to answer. The is no objective answer to that question is it one determined by an assessment of the circumstances of each case in respect to previous rulings on such matters. People on the wrong side of the ruling can either accept the peaceful solution or favour violence to resolve the dispute.

Agree to some extent. I think you suggest a false dichotomy of adhere to my system or use violence. But I concede in general that that would indeed be the most likely outcome. Not sure how you resolve that.

You’ve lost me here. Can you rephrase?

I don't always make sense Gia, it's part of my charm. ;D

 

[DavidSSS]

So empirical evidence can prove nothing in economics, and deduction is a superior methodology in economics?

In other words if theory says one thing and reality says another, theory is correct and reality is wrong.

Enjoy your fantasy world.

As for minimum wage, here is where we have a real problem. If people work yet cannot earn enough to put a roof over their head, pay bills and put food in the table (this is happening now in Australia, has always been a feature in the USA) then there is something seriously wrong with the economic system. I don't suppose you see a problem here, but I think people are more important than some obtuse economic theory.

DS

 

[Baloo]

Economists are like FX analysts. Very good at explaining why something happened but useless at predicting. What's going to happen.

 

[Giardiasis]

So empirical evidence can prove nothing in economics, and deduction is a superior methodology in economics?

In other words if theory says one thing and reality says another, theory is correct and reality is wrong.

Enjoy your fantasy world.

As for minimum wage, here is where we have a real problem. If people work yet cannot earn enough to put a roof over their head, pay bills and put food in the table (this is happening now in Australia, has always been a feature in the USA) then there is something seriously wrong with the economic system. I don't suppose you see a problem here, but I think people are more important than some obtuse economic theory.

DS

Yes.

You are conflating empirical evidence with “reality”.

If you think people are important then you wouldn’t support the minimum wage as it does nothing to help people except a small number of people from labour competition at the expense of the rest of society, most of all the lowest skilled workers. If people are struggling to make ends meet then you should advocate for the government to make it easier for businesses to hire people and invest in increasing productivity by reducing taxation (preferably to zero), cutting regulations, selling public assets, etc. Basically get the hell out of it and let the market process work.

 

[Giardiasis]

Economists are like FX analysts. Very good at explaining why something happened but useless at predicting. What's going to happen.

A good economist can tell you what is likely to happen given the circumstances at hand, but they would never give a definitive timeline for it to occur.

 

[bullus_hit]

Yes.

You are conflating empirical evidence with “reality”.

If you think people are important then you wouldn’t support the minimum wage as it does nothing to help people except a small number of people from labour competition at the expense of the rest of society, most of all the lowest skilled workers. If people are struggling to make ends meet then you should advocate for the government to make it easier for businesses to hire people and invest in increasing productivity by reducing taxation (preferably to zero), cutting regulations, selling public assets, etc. Basically get the hell out of it and let the market process work.

Ah yes, the market behaves so nicely for the common good. :hihi

You must have been appalled at the Banking Royal Commission.

 

[Giardiasis]

Ah yes, the market behaves so nicely for the common good. :hihi

You must have been appalled at the Banking Royal Commission.

It certainly behaves nicer then the government.

Given how far the banking class are in cohorts with the political class who could be surprised?

 

[DavidSSS]

I think people are important and therefore should be paid a living wage.

Aah yes, economists, their predictive power is amazing, must be why so many predicted the GFC :rofl

I'm confusing empirical evidence with reality? What is that supposed to mean? Empirical evidence is based on observation of, um, reality. You keep enjoying that fantasy world of yours where crackpot theories are more credible than reality.

DS

 

[Giardiasis]

I think people are important and therefore should be paid a living wage.

Aah yes, economists, their predictive power is amazing, must be why so many predicted the GFC :rofl

I'm confusing empirical evidence with reality? What is that supposed to mean? Empirical evidence is based on observation of, um, reality. You keep enjoying that fantasy world of yours where crackpot theories are more credible than reality.

DS

People can’t be entitled to a certain standard of living by decree, they can only be paid what their labour is worth. Yet you accuse me of living in a fantasy world?

You realise that I have beef with the vast majority of economists? Most of them follow Keynesian nonsense. The Austrian school economists on the other hand did predict the GFC. Austrian Business Cycle Theory explains the mess we find ourselves in.

All empirical knowledge still has to interpreted through theory. Just because you observe something doesn’t automatically give you an understanding of reality. For example, observing an increase in employment following the enactment of a minimum wage doesn’t then mean minimum wages must lead to increased employment. There are so many other factors at play that could have led to the increase in employment such as reduced cost of credit, technological advancement, increased prices for goods sold, etc. Praxeology provides universal economic laws, empiricism provides datums.

 

[Giardiasis]

.

 

[bullus_hit]

It certainly behaves nicer then the government.

Given how far the banking class are in cohorts with the political class who could be surprised?

Other way around, lobby groups have gripped the political process to the tune of 1 trillion a year (USA), similar to here although on a much smaller scale.

As for market failure, there's plenty of examples, been over this numerous times but the one constant is greed, the millionaire race has become a billionaire race, the fact that so much wealth is in the hands of so few indicates that capitalism is not there to benefit society as a whole.

 

[Giardiasis]

Other way around, lobby groups have gripped the political process to the tune of 1 trillion a year (USA), similar to here although on a much smaller scale.

As for market failure, there's plenty of examples, been over this numerous times but the one constant is greed, the millionaire race has become a billionaire race, the fact that so much wealth is in the hands of so few indicates that capitalism is not there to benefit society as a whole.

Your market failure claim fails given how far the government intervenes in the market process which distorts it and creates a whole raft of unintended consequences. Otherwise market failure just means people make peaceful decisions you don’t like.

The claim that capitalism leads to wealth disparity is a fair claim, but then suggesting this is bad is not so obvious. Wealth disparity is bad insofar that it is a result of government privilege, but not bad where people are rewarded for providing value to other people’s lives. It is not a zero sum game, otherwise we never would have got out of a hand to mouth existence. Wealth disparity wasn’t so much a thing back when that was the norm.

 

[bullus_hit]

Your market failure claim fails given how far the government intervenes in the market process which distorts it and creates a whole raft of unintended consequences. Otherwise market failure just means people make peaceful decisions you don’t like.

The claim that capitalism leads to wealth disparity is a fair claim, but then suggesting this is bad is not so obvious. Wealth disparity is bad insofar that it is a result of government privilege, but not bad where people are rewarded for providing value to other people’s lives. It is not a zero sum game, otherwise we never would have got out of a hand to mouth existence. Wealth disparity wasn’t so much a thing back when that was the norm.

Wealth disparity is the one common denominator in all revolutions, history repeats & will continue to do so.

As for market failure, you're living in a fools paradise if you think it's only governments, you need to shed these superficial labels & assess human behaviour without an agenda. From animal poaching, to super trawlers, to crooked bankers, to human traffickers, to scorched earth miners........ there's an infinite list of irresponsible profiteering. And the moral of this story? Income inequality will only exacerbate these problems.

 

[Brodders17]

Wealth disparity is the one common denominator in all revolutions, history repeats & will continue to do so.

As for market failure, you're living in a fools paradise if you think it's only governments, you need to shed these superficial labels & assess human behaviour without an agenda. From animal poaching, to super trawlers, to crooked bankers, to human traffickers, to scorched earth miners........ there's an infinite list of irresponsible profiteering. And the moral of this story? Income inequality will only exacerbate these problems.

you know than in G's ideal world everything is a resource to be owned, or exploited. if fish are running low we better fish them quicker so we can make money from them before someone else does. if you have rubbish that needs disposing throw it out to sea, where it doesnt impact anyone private property rights, and it costs you nothing. have a dispute with a neighbour, take them to a private court, assuming you can afford it. if you dont get the result you are after take them to another private court. dont like someone, buy the property that surrounds their home, and never let them leave. dont like the native birds that wake you in the morning, lure them onto you property and shoot them. all fair game, as long as it doesnt impact someone's private property.

 

[Giardiasis]

Wealth disparity is the one common denominator in all revolutions, history repeats & will continue to do so.

As for market failure, you're living in a fools paradise if you think it's only governments, you need to shed these superficial labels & assess human behaviour without an agenda. From animal poaching, to super trawlers, to crooked bankers, to human traffickers, to scorched earth miners........ there's an infinite list of irresponsible profiteering. And the moral of this story? Income inequality will only exacerbate these problems.

Eh, I think unfair privilege or unequal treatment before the law is probably more accurate than wealth disparity.

Your list of bad guys are not features of capitalism, they are all in fact enemies of private property rights. Socialism has enhanced their ability to steal, vandalise, etc. Animal poachers find it much more profitable when the government makes the products they sell illegal, super trawlers make sense only when fisheries are not privatised (see tragedy of the commons), crooked bankers are in cohorts with politicians that allow them to print money out of nothing so they can fund government spending, human traffickers make a killing when welfare benefits lure economics migrants, and ecological issues with mining see the tragedy of the commons again.

You might want to try and understand what capitalism is a bit more before you start pointing the finger.

 

[DavidSSS]

People can’t be entitled to a certain standard of living by decree, they can only be paid what their labour is worth. Yet you accuse me of living in a fantasy world?

You see this is the crux of the problem with economic fundamentalists.

They take the view that it is people who serve the economy. People need to sacrifice so that the economy is healthy.

I take the view that the economy should serve the people. If the economy does not meet the needs of the people then it is the economy which needs to change, not the people.

Oh, and yes, I do agree with guaranteed minimum income. I also find work for the dole offensive, if you work you should get a wage not unemployment benefits.

People are more important than the economy.

DS

 

[Giardiasis]

you know than in G's ideal world everything is a resource to be owned, or exploited. if fish are running low we better fish them quicker so we can make money from them before someone else does. if you have rubbish that needs disposing throw it out to sea, where it doesnt impact anyone private property rights, and it costs you nothing. have a dispute with a neighbour, take them to a private court, assuming you can afford it. if you dont get the result you are after take them to another private court. dont like someone, buy the property that surrounds their home, and never let them leave. dont like the native birds that wake you in the morning, lure them onto you property and shoot them. all fair game, as long as it doesnt impact someone's private property.

Your fish example applies to public ownership of water resources because as no one owns the capitial value of the resource they are incentivised to strip it bare before others do. You have characterised by opinion wrong here.

Water resources should be privatised so dumping rubbish at sea would violate the owner of that water resource. You have characterised my opinion wrong here.

Yes go to private courts as opposed to public courts, as they will be much better equipped to deal with disputes. If you have need for these services you should take out insurance. The most respectable courts will be seen as the best final court of appeal that insurance companies will accept rulings from.

Ha, you’d have to really hate someone and be incredibly silly to try that tactic.

I’d have thought a better tactic would be to lure them away as you’d hate to gun down someone else’s birds. Pretty sure most people would refrain from killing the birds but by all means cherry pick extreme examples all you want. How about, “you like native birds? Buy a property where they live and help them to thrive in their natural habitat.”

 

[Brodders17]

Eh, I think unfair privilege or unequal treatment before the law is probably more accurate than wealth disparity.

Your list of bad guys are not features of capitalism, they are all in fact enemies of private property rights. Socialism has enhanced their ability to steal, vandalise, etc. Animal poachers find it much more profitable when the government makes the products they sell illegal, super trawlers make sense only when fisheries are not privatised (see tragedy of the commons), crooked bankers are in cohorts with politicians that allow them to print money out of nothing so they can fund government spending, human traffickers make a killing when welfare benefits lure economics migrants, and ecological issues with mining see the tragedy of the commons again.

You might want to try and understand what capitalism is a bit more before you start pointing the finger.

many animals were being hunted to extinction before governments stepped in. tigers are just one example. rhinos another.
super trawlers make sense because they allow boats to go further and stay on the seas longer, helping make more money. if there is no regulation the amount of fish killed and thrown away will be huge. they will fish areas until there is no fish left then move on.
'economic migrants' are a tiny % of those travelling to Australia and other places by boat. (ill exclude the movement of people from Africa to Europe cos i dont know enough about that area.) as long as there is war, and extreme violence their will be people trying to move to safe places. regardless in your ideal world there will be no migrants because there will be no countries. anyone who can buy entry to an area will be welcome. in your world of free people movement there would be more people moving to wealthy areas where jobs etc are.