I was debating the subject of the recession, arguing the Austrian line that he bailouts and stimulus should not have been passed, and the recession should have been allowed to run its course. I got the following reply:
"Your argument is basically that if we prevented businesses from borrowing for several years... if we let their manufacturing stop... killing their suppliers and laying off their employees... and if we prevented people from paying their bills for several years so their creditors also failed... and so they too would layoff their employees furthering this self-propagating/cascading set of failures... and if we allowed consumption and production to fall nearly to zero for more than 98% of the population... that, as a result, employment would have gone up and the depression would have ended within 1-2 years? That doesn't make any sense. It dismisses too many of the connections in the system, and glosses over the real-world impact of demolishing the existing system and killing the major players in just a few short weeks. We can't even rebuild the World Trade Center after 8 years, and you're arguing that a mass extinction event of all of the world economies and major players in banking would only have a negative effect lasting for 1? I'm sorry. I'm not drinking that particular brand of kool-aid."
The thread is at the following address:
http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=44073
I was just wondering, how would you respond to such a comment?
Um, he's strawmanning, ignore.
He's basically arguing that economies should not correct. It's a Soviet-esque view.
People this confused are just going to argue ignorantly to defend their ignorance. You can debate for the gallery, but you're not going to win this person over.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
You could point out that the reason that the WTC hasn't been rebuilt in 8 years is largely due to government meddling so the comparison is not accurate. You could also point out that addressing the problem now with a bit of pain is better than postponing it and dealing with a greater amount of pain later; But yeah; it seems as though it would be hard to convince him.
I think I won't bother replying. I recently made a flurry of posts and participated in an active debate, but it seems that most people there cannot let go of their fully formed social-democratic, facist leaning, positivist world view. I used to be a frequent visitor and participant, though I find it difficult to see how I could associate with such an ignorant crowd in the future. As long as I participate in other threads I feel I should give them my 2 cents on Economics and Politics, especially given the recent defenses of Marxism. But then again, I'm not sure if it's worth bothering, I'm probably wasting my time...
abskebabs: I think I won't bother replying. I recently made a flurry of posts and participated in an active debate, but it seems that most people there cannot let go of their fully formed social-democratic, facist leaning, positivist world view. I used to be a frequent visitor and participant, though I find it difficult to see how I could associate with such an ignorant crowd in the future. As long as I participate in other threads I feel I should give them my 2 cents on Economics and Politics, especially given the recent defenses of Marxism. But then again, I'm not sure if it's worth bothering, I'm probably wasting my time...
A problem you might encounter is that they will think you are defending the "evil capitalists," thus, even if your arguments are correct and totally defeat theirs, they won't accept it because you are defending the "evil capitalists."
My favorite online shop: www.cafepress.com/libertyphile
There are some folks who you can't reach, some folks who will at least possibly reconsider their views, and some folks who you might start on the road towards the support of the free market system. I don't think it's wise to immediately assume that someone is a lost cause. Re Evil Capitalists: The criticisms of the corporate state, of big business and big government working hand in hand, the criticisms of mercantilism and the use of state violence to "secure strategic resources" put forward by libertarians have seemed to make progressives and socialists to at least reconsider their position or at least view true supporters of the free market as not being 'evil capitalists' in my personal experience. Using the capture theory of regulation to criticize government regulation also seems to work.
Here's a suggestion:
The "crisis" -- if left on its own -- would only bankrupt and depreciate the productive assets in the society but it wouldn't destroy them. It will merely (and rightfully) change their ownership from the current (overextended over-leveraged) owners (borrowers) to the new owners (previously prudent savers) at bargain prices. Once this clearing occurs (at whatever prices market ends up bearing) the new owners would be again willing to employ these resources for creation of wealth. The society would also be better off, as all assets would be in much healthier hands providing the basis for a much more robust and sustainable growth ahead.
Z.
A bank only has a social function if it can preserve capital through loans it makes. If its loans fail, then this bank has an anti-social function. It should not be re-capitalized by taxpayers.
What this means is that businesses should get loans from sources that can preserve their capital.
Of course "banks" as they exist on Wall Street do not even lend their own capital. They leverage Fed credit to arbitrage the markets. That is how they are making record profits even though the general economy is declining. You can't even claim they fulfill any social function.
Microsecession as a strategy for revolution | Challenge to minarchist | How would a private road system work?
iNow: "Your argument is basically that if we prevented businesses from borrowing for several years
"Your argument is basically that if we prevented businesses from borrowing for several years
strawman
... if we let their manufacturing stop...
no
killing their suppliers and laying off their employees...
and if we prevented people from paying their bills for several years so their creditors also failed...
in some cases, yes.
and so they too would layoff their employees furthering this self-propagating/cascading set of failures...
such things don't "propogate" through the economy. It's more like a ripple. One person being laid off from a given job doesn't start off a chain reaction where 2 people, then 4 people, then 8 people ad infinitum are laid off.
and if we allowed consumption and production to fall nearly to zero for more than 98% of the population...
a stable market without government intervention and without any form of government control of the money supply (right now the monetary system is completely socialized) things would have been, and would be better for us.
(and if it were me he were arguing against, i'd add this tidbit:)
But i see that you're taking very extreme positions, so this must be emotionally unsettling for you. It was for me when I first discovered that government control over matters economic is the actual single largest cause of these problems.
...
I would also ask them why they thought certain recessions started and what their cause(s) were. How has the market "failed?" and such.
The appeal to "charity" is a truly ironic one. First, it is hardly "charity" to take wealth by force and hand it over to someone else. -Rothbard
abskebabs:That doesn't make any sense. It dismisses too many of the connections in the system, and glosses over the real-world impact of demolishing the existing system and killing the major players in just a few short weeks.
"It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But the half-wit remains a half-wit and the emperor remains an emperor." ~Dream
Snowflake:This is an argumentum ad hominem, but they are probably convinced by that sort of thing since they believe newscasters just b/c they are newscasters.
It seems so, they seem to imply that because my arguments are unique and so different and "extreme" compared to everything else they're hearing it must just be I'm a nutcase chasing ideals and unconnected with reality.
If push comes to shove, and you ask them eto think carefully about the concepts and how one thing leads to another they reply that Economics is not a science, and is essentially a set of arbitrary opinions on economic matters none better than the other.
I think it's insulting it should be called a "science forum." At least the poltics section should be titled something like "blue dog atheists with prejudice."
I would just ask him, "what would have been done with the money if the government did not spend it?"
At most, 5% of the population would need to stop complying to bring down the government.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap