You're correct. I wasn't really arguing against the substance of your posts within the context I'm thinking. In economic science, economic action is defined as voluntary exchange of goods. Economic action by definition involves peace. That is necessary in order to do the science. Usually economic science defines action with the cerberus paribus proposition. So technically economics in a free market is the only economics possible, and it is the only market that currently exists even in North Korea. When economics is delineated and political actions or criminal acts are excluded that's what is left over. Not that political and criminal acts are necessarily the same. I'm not trying to endeavor on that in these posts. But political legislation/acts and criminal acts are involuntary acts implemented on the voluntary exchanges that people have been doing throughout time.Evinnra wrote:Yes, if you recall I did claim that neither perfectly free market, nor perfect communism is possible in actual practice. I take it you agree with me that the economic structures vary only in extent of the dominance of central organisations. My claim is simply that this variety is caused by each regions social conditions and I'm not quite sure what you say about this claim of mine.
As to rules that you mentioned, when I read that I read the word law. Would that be an ok assumption on my part to read into that concept you mentioned?
That's true what you say. Economic action is voluntary exchanges. Politics by definition involves involuntary acts, ie. decrees upon the land, etc.... Politics intervenes upon already pre-existing economic actions that people already are making. Usually the way politics intervenes is via law. Political actions are legislated and then decreed upon the society in a number of ways and when it comes to economic actions it is no different. Not that I'm saying that certain political means are wrong, meaning, I may not agree with them but a society may come to agreements as to how they want to intervene politically within their own society. Maybe that is a bit more clearer? I think my posts before didn't address what I said here very well, but I feel I may have wrote more clearly this time around. Thank you for your patience.Evinnra wrote:So, am I correct that you claim the two social sciences (politics and economics) can be arbitrarily gathered under the same umbrella for the sake of making a point , when it suits our needs to make an argument, but we can arbitrarily divide these social sciences into two at any given moment, when it does not serve our interest to see them as fundamentally inter-related? At which point is it justifiable to separate the two social sciences and for what reason?
In the market interest rates naturally would go up and down in accord with supply and demand. When the interest rates go up and down artificially then it distorts supply and demand and creates shortages in one sector of the economy and malinvestments (over-investments) in another part of the economy. The distinction is between artificial and natural. Natural interest rates are created and implemented voluntarily. Artificial interest rates are created and implemented involuntary.Evinnra wrote:Low interest rates also encourage people to invest in small businesses as opposed to saving money in a bank that can go insolvent any time. How is this not protecting the free market? It certainly does not lend much money for speculators to gamble away in a still inadequately regulated financial system. Right?
What artificial or involuntary exchanges (coercive, non-peaceful means) what they do in the long run is distort prices. Supply and demand are governed by prices. But when supply and demand is artificially intervened then the prices will not be able to govern how much supply and how much demand there is in any one part of the economy of any one thing. It is humanly impossible to know the supply and demand of anything without prices due to knowledge limits.
Artificially lowering and raising of interest rates distorts prices and therefore there is no way to know the supply and demand of anything. That's what creates depressions and recessions. Shortages are created in parts of the economy and overinvestments (or too much of something) is created in other parts of the economy. These become enhanced over time and lead to massive imbalances in the market. It can take years for the full consequences of any one intervention or artificial adjustment to fully take effect but it inevitably happens. It depends on the ground situation as to how long and also depends on the polices or types of interventions as they can change the course and lead to further damages. Maybe that helped.
I'm not sure how you concluded that interest rates have to do with putting money in banks that are irresponsible. Much of the problem with irresponsible banks is they have been going to the Fed. Reserve for hand out money through their Open Discount Window long before the bailouts of 2008. It's how the market has been operating. Also legislation has been passed for decades in favor of large institutions that were not doing well in order to politically sustain them. Bailouts are only what the public see, but if checked, the Fed. Reserve does not hide the fact that they have been handing out money to large firms for decades. In fact they are quite proud of it. But in the long run this is what has closed small farms and businesses and when times become very troublesome (when bubbles pop, recessions, depressions) then even very large firms go bankrupt but they are not part of the oligarchy (the status quo I was mentioning) and so they are pushed out while the oligarchy buys them up and consolidates their power.Evinnra wrote:Who am I to argue against such illustrious names? Of course, you could be right what you say about interest rates, I just can not agree with you because the reasoning does not seem quite right to me. Why put money in banks and financial institutions when these institutions admit that they don't really know what they are doing (non-transparency) and accept no responsibility for their disasterous actions (un-accountability?
This paragraph of mine did get further into the political actions. Maybe that's why it appears that at times I bring up politics and other times I don't want to. I believe it is because we have to discussions happening within our one discussion. I don't know if you agree with that?
Yes but the U.S. and most countries around the world are not savings cultures. They are not capitalistic. Let me parse this up a bit.Evinnra wrote:It seems one might be better off saving money under the mattress. But people in general are smarter than that, if they have money to invest, they could invest in actual businesses that they can see working with their money and have some control over.
There is an underlying capitalistic part still on-going. People can save. Even a dollar for next week for example. But artificial low interest rates are anti-savings by definition. It's why the Fed. Reserve artificially lowers the interest rates because they are trying to pull out people's savings and get them to spend their money. To sit on money over the decades would have had any one person lose money in the long run. Keep in mind the dollar has lost 97 cents of it's value over the last 100 years or so. That's anti-savings. Again, this is not something the Fed. hides but is proud of. It is what their economists argue for because they believe debt is what makes prosperity. It is counter-intuitive to what people usually do in their own household. They know that argument and say how people operate in their own homes is very different than how an economy nation wide or global wide operates. They argue that debt and the bigger the debt makes a nation or global economy more prosperous. In fact many argued the bailouts were not big enough. They say debt, huge debts are really good for the economy. I say that is bunk and the collapse of economies with large debts is only proving that their kind of economics doesn't work.
They say debt is good because they believe, again they do not hide this for this is their argument, but they believe that debts will disappear when economies start to grow because then all the new businesses and growing economies can be taxed and therefore the debt will disappear. They assume large debts and spending will all be paid back once the new businesses open their doors. Countries are way past this point though. And the economists of different countries know this. So their second ace up their sleeve is they believe if economies are not coming back so taxes can pay off the large debts created by the huge spending and bailouts, then they think if they inflate or in other words print tons and tons of money this will thereby make the debt so small that it will easily be paid off. By printing lots of money, then more money in the economy thereby the debts become small compared to how much money is in the economy. Then the debts will be paid off over time as they will proportionally be smaller due to all the money now in the economy. But do you really think printing trillions, and trillions of dollars and dumping that into the economy will allow money to be worth something over time or do you believe that much money floating around in the economy will be more like people going to buy bread with wheelbarrows full of money?
Think of how you would run your household. What would you do? Would you go into debt, a huge debt and then risk that someday you or somebody in your house will get two more jobs (more businesses in the economy to tax and pay off the debt) to pay off that debt?
Me too. I'm doing a poor job in explaining this. I don't know what you were asking here. Are you saying financial institutions are central planning, meaning, Wall Street is a central planning institution? I would disagree, but also keep in mind that Wall Street anymore is an extension of gov't privy. Institutions on wall street no longer are part of the incentive and risk taking of the market. They are part of the oligarchy of gov't and have been for decades. It is only recently that much of this has surfaced as their power has increased and they have consolidated and rid much of their competitors. Again I know we are mixing politics and economics, but as long as we both can keep in mind when we are exclusively talking economics and exclusively talking politics or a version of both put together, then I'm fine with this. As long as we are reasonably delineated the distinctions, then I'm ok with this.Evinnra wrote:This is the point I am not getting just yet. You say central planning never works and I agree with this. But then you would like people to invest in financial institutions that can only make profit if they have knowledge of what a central planning is about to do. It is this knowledge that has value on the stock market, for the buildings, material and the work of the people would earn a nice profit without the stock market. I am confused now.
The stock market isn't central planning as long as the people involved are making voluntary exchanges. Central planning that I was referring to that I'm arguing against in the economy is involuntary exchanges applied to the market. Interest rates have over time naturally gone up and down in accord with supply and demand. But with a federal system that is nation and global wide, interest rates are currently being involuntarily applied without knowledge of what the supply and demand is within the market. There is a knowledge gap that leads to massive bubbles that are only going to grow and pop bigger and eventually what is in trouble is the devaluing of the currency which translates into shortages of some things and too much of another thing in the market. Currently the currency being weakened is effecting food and energy (the article I provide on those prices going up ca. 20% in one year, that's not good in my opinion because they are basic necessities people need to survive). This knowledge gap is what made more houses (housing bubble) than the demand that was present. It's what makes depressions and recessions.Evinnra wrote: Do you or do you not believe in central planning? If you believe central planning never works out, hence it is bad, then why rely on a system (the stock exchange) to make money that it self must rely on the existence of central planning?
Maybe I was able to answer this above. Also remember that Wall Street wouldn't necessarily be the only stock exchange. At times in the history of the U.S. other places developed where stocks were being exchanged, but the big Wall Street firms in the oligarchy had D.C. legislate those competing places into non-existence.Evinnra wrote:If you believe there is always some central planning and it is a good thing, why promote a money making method (the use of the stock exchange) that undermines the stability of central planning?
Also if you mean central planning means law enforcement, then I agree with you, but there isn't any law-enforcement within the oligarchy. Maybe I don't know what you mean by "central planning".
I pray they get peace so their disturbances do not ripple any longer to cause unnecessary suffering upon others. I pray the same happens to me as well as I do not want to cause unnecessary suffering upon others either.Evinnra wrote:To break something deliberately in order to have the opportunity to come and save the day is a very nasty act but there are many who make their fortune this way. All I know is that if I were using this method to look like the hero on the end of the day, I would admit that I have done it just in case there is a special corner in hell reserved for the likes of me. It is much safer to make peace with my enemy while we are still on the road, no?
P.S. I don't know if we need to continue this conversation. I don't know if I had diverted the thread away from it's intended course. I apologize if I did. Evinnra, maybe if you want to pm me to further discuss this subject I would be more than happy to. I don't know if I want to continue to discuss this subject, even though it has been enlightening. I wouldn't mind checking out other topics in other threads. This can be a touchy subject and I don't want to drag it on longer than it is necessary. I thank you for your cordial and enjoyable conversation Evinnra. It has been a blessing.