Free Trade? Fair Trade?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='22 September 2009 - 12:17 AM' timestamp='1253596668' post='1970908']
Don't get me wrong, Adam Smith was amazing. The fact is, there aren't too many economists who have it even mostly right. Milton Friedman was right on some things. Even Alan Greenspan was correct about a great many things, before he got sucked into the system.

Of course greed was among the root causes of the current economic unpleasantness. But desire for material things does in itself make acquiring them possible. The Federal Reserve's inflation, which has graciously robbed the dollar of 93% of its value since 1913, helped make it possible, as did the many scams run by the banks. The banks, no longer required by a free market to actually maintain anything near enough in reserves to cover its loans thanks to the FDIC and easy-money policies on the part of the Fed, were able to make loans to anyone that was above room temperature and had somewhat of a pulse. Why be fiscally responsible when "the State" foots the bill if you bust? And those economists, studying their graphs, and their charts, and basking in the teaching of Keynes, made the real estate bubble possible, and the coming inflation inevitable.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
You have a very inaccurate view of what real economists do. Some economists study graphs all day, to be sure. Most do not. Most are fully integrated with other industries, for instance health care, and apply economic thinking across the board........ and do you hear about them? Not really. Know why? It's because you don't need to. It's because they do their job pretty well, and it works.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='22 September 2009 - 01:25 AM' timestamp='1253597115' post='1970911']
You have a very inaccurate view of what real economists do. Some economists study graphs all day, to be sure. Most do not. Most are fully integrated with other industries, for instance health care, and apply economic thinking across the board........ and do you hear about them? Not really. Know why? It's because you don't need to. It's because they do their job pretty well, and it works.
[/quote]

I agree that the economists in free market roles do a very good job, and I agree that we do not hear about them because they do such a good job. My contention lies with economists who introduce coercion or fraud into the system. And the ones who cheer this process on. They usually work for the State. They are the economists one [i]does[/i] hear about, quite frequently. They want to guide human desires by artificial means which are foreign to the free market. They want to give ridiculously large loans to people who have done nothing to prove their ability to pay them back. This is hurtful to the loan recipient, and beneficial to the bank. When the bank does not have government subsidies to fall back on in case of default, they would ordinarily refuse such a loan, prompting the would-be loan recipient to stay within his means.

These economists love inflation, the central bank, and money backed up by pure faith that a piece of linen with $100 printed on it is somehow 100 times more valuable than the same size piece of linen with "$1" printed on it. I find fault with those economists, and the bankers who artificially and unjustly benefit through their policies.

~Sternhauser

Edited September 22, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Hassan]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='22 September 2009 - 12:57 AM' timestamp='1253595474' post='1970902']
Nihil Obstat, the current economic mess was created by economic "geniuses" who experience a giddy thrill from poring over charts and graphs of data, and who tried to come up with economic formulas to explain something that can never be explained solely by formulas: free human action. Human nature was created by God, and human nature legislates economic law. Save yourself the nonsense of studying modern economic theory (particularly Keynesianism and all the nonsense monetarist ideas) and get yourself an inexpensive education in economics. Three authors: Ludwig Von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, and Hans-Herman Hoppe. Their rock-solid works should be your curriculum. I suggest starting out with a one of the shorter works. [i]Interventionism: An Economic Analysis[/i], by Von Mises. After a few chapters, you'll really begin to understand why Peter Schiff was able to predict the current mess long before it happened, in spite of the laughter and scorn coming from the the financial big shots.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]



Ludwig Von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, and Hans-Herman Hoppe were prolly all economic eggheads who got giddy over data. They are not to be trusted.

[LouisvilleFan]

Reckon I'll vote Fair Trade, though I also suppose Free Trade in terms of eliminating/cutting tariffs and other protectionist restrictions. The problem with free trade is that greedy corporate managers, government agents, and overseas interests too easily take advantage of free trade agreements to make an unfair profit using child and slave labor, moving operations to countries with few or no environmental laws, and... you get the picture. As a policy, Fair Trade is an alternative that recognizes those social costs and gives consumers the option to vote for a better life for everyone along the supply chain, especially farmers.

I see no small connection between being mindful of the unseen and oft-forgetton workers in the field who sow seed, till, and harvest our food in its embryonic stage of life and being mindful of human beings who live unseen and silently persecuted in their own embryonic stage of life. If we say we love the baby, we mustn't crucify the man.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Hassan' date='22 September 2009 - 02:49 AM' timestamp='1253602151' post='1970928']
Ludwig Von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, and Hans-Herman Hoppe were prolly all economic eggheads who got giddy over data. They are not to be trusted.
[/quote]

You probably shouldn't jump to conclusions on that. The data they thrive on and rejoice in are the truth of human behavior, based on human nature, a wondrous thing given to us by God. State economists? Not so much.

~Sternhauser

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='22 September 2009 - 09:34 AM' timestamp='1253630057' post='1970982']
You probably shouldn't jump to conclusions on that. The data they thrive on and rejoice in are the truth of human behavior, based on human nature, a wondrous thing given to us by God. State economists? Not so much.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
So the only difference between those guys you mentioned, and these vicious 'state economists' is who happens to employ them? I'm sure some state economists are corrupt and have made a mess of things. I'm equally sure that there are corrupt and greedy private economists. There are also corrupt and greedy janitors that clean the Bay Street trading floor at night.
Generalizations of this sort should generally be avoided unless they can be backed up decisively.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='22 September 2009 - 10:38 AM' timestamp='1253630301' post='1970985']
So the only difference between those guys you mentioned, and these vicious 'state economists' is who happens to employ them? I'm sure some state economists are corrupt and have made a mess of things. I'm equally sure that there are corrupt and greedy private economists. There are also corrupt and greedy janitors that clean the Bay Street trading floor at night.
Generalizations of this sort should generally be avoided unless they can be backed up decisively.
[/quote]

There's a big difference between the two, Nihil Obstat. The private economist doesn't have the insanely great and artificial power (power beyond what a free market would bestow) nor does believe that he has a plausible right, given by some aetherial "social contract," to nearly single-handedly enact policies that can destroy an entire economy. Nor does the private economist think he has the right to create money out of thin air. The State economist does. (Although he does these things thinking that he's [i]helping [/i]the economy.) The employer is not the question here. It is what they have the power to do, and what they think they have the right to do. And the extent of the damage they can cause by inflicting their policies on us.

~Sternhauser

Edited September 22, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='22 September 2009 - 10:29 AM' timestamp='1253633356' post='1970996']
There's a big difference between the two, Nihil Obstat. The private economist doesn't have the insanely great and artificial power (power beyond what a free market would bestow) nor does believe that he has a plausible right, given by some aetherial "social contract," to nearly single-handedly enact policies that can destroy an entire economy. Nor does the private economist think he has the right to create money out of thin air. The State economist does. (Although he does these things thinking that he's [i]helping [/i]the economy.) The employer is not the question here. It is what they have the power to do, and what they think they have the right to do. And the extent of the damage they can cause by inflicting their policies on us.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
Aren't the monetary supply and the government separated under your system?

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='22 September 2009 - 01:07 PM' timestamp='1253639272' post='1971047']
Aren't the monetary supply and the government separated under your system?
[/quote]

Yes. In a free market, the currency or currencies are decided upon by what people want to use. And no, there would be no violent monopoly on what people may and may not use as currency, or what one is forced to accept as payment.

~Sternhauser

Edited September 23, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='22 September 2009 - 07:31 PM' timestamp='1253665895' post='1971242']
Yes. In a free market, the currency or currencies are decided upon by what people want to use. And no, there would be no violent monopoly on what people may and may not use as currency, or what one is forced to accept as payment.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
Well there already is a disconnect. Economists employed by the state have a say in spending. Monetary supply is regulated by private economists.

You're trying to lump all economists into one giant group which is entirely unfair. Like every single profession known to man, some will be corrupt and greedy, and some will be good people. The more power that profession has, the more damage the corrupt ones can do. It's the nature of our world.

[Christopher Brandon]

I personaly think fair trade sounds more... fair. A gullible man can be robbed of his money due to ignorance of value brought on by supply and demand.

and free trade sounds more... free. regulation sounds comunist.

so It's up in the air for me.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='22 September 2009 - 11:33 PM' timestamp='1253676804' post='1971310']
Well there already is a disconnect. Economists employed by the state have a say in spending. Monetary supply is regulated by private economists.

You're trying to lump all economists into one giant group which is entirely unfair. Like every single profession known to man, some will be corrupt and greedy, and some will be good people. The more power that profession has, the more damage the corrupt ones can do. It's the nature of our world.
[/quote]

Are you calling Bernanke and his merry band "private" economists? Saying the Federal Reserve is "private" is like saying Blackwater, or "the mercenary group formerly known as Blackwater" is "private."

Look at recent State economic staff. Observe who they worked for prior to working for the State. Former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson was CEO Goldman Sachs. Who sat on the TARP board? Henry Paulson. Who got a huge chunk of TARP money stolen from taxpayers and retirees through inflationary spending? Goldman Sachs. Coincidence? Tim Geithner was head of the New York Fed. Obama's special envoy, Richard Halbrooke? Worked for AIG. Helped to drive it into the ground. Now he's helping drive the United State economy into the ground with the same tactics. The State, the Fed, and major financials are all quite cosy with each other. How were the CEO's (linked to politicians at the hip) making 13 million dollars a year, while their companies were going bankrupt? Why did those banks receive TARP funds when 70% of the population opposed it? Why did Obama's men refuse to disclose the recipients of those funds? There's no distinction between "private" versus "public" when bankers and politicians are scratching each other's backs with favors and greasing each other's palms with money that isn't their own.

[quote]"You're trying to lump all economists into one giant group which isentirely unfair. Like every single profession known to man, some willbe corrupt and greedy, and some will be good people. The more powerthat profession has, the more damage the corrupt ones can do. It's thenature of our world."[/quote]

I'm lumping them into [i]two [/i]giant groups. One group makes artificial, unilateral adjustments to the economy from the top down, and the other does not. I am all in favor of the latter.

~Sternhauser

Edited September 23, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='22 September 2009 - 11:12 PM' timestamp='1253679134' post='1971332']
Are you calling Bernanke and his merry band "private" economists? Saying the Federal Reserve is "private" is like saying Blackwater, or "the mercenary group formerly known as Blackwater" is "private."

Look at recent State economic staff. Observe who they worked for prior to working for the State. Former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson was CEO Goldman Sachs. Who sat on the TARP board? Henry Paulson. Who got a huge chunk of TARP money stolen from taxpayers and retirees through inflationary spending? Goldman Sachs. Coincidence? Tim Geithner was head of the New York Fed. Obama's special envoy, Richard Halbrooke? Worked for AIG. Helped to drive it into the ground. Now he's helping drive the United State economy into the ground with the same tactics. The State, the Fed, and major financials are all quite cosy with each other. How were the CEO's (linked to politicians at the hip) making 13 million dollars a year, while their companies were going bankrupt? Why did those banks receive TARP funds when 70% of the population opposed it? Why did Obama's men refuse to disclose the recipients of those funds? There's no distinction between "private" versus "public" when bankers and politicians are scratching each other's backs with favors and greasing each other's palms with money that isn't their own.



I'm lumping them into [i]two [/i]giant groups. One group makes artificial, unilateral adjustments to the economy from the top down, and the other does not. I am all in favor of the latter.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
You just listed a bunch of corrupt economists. So what? I can list a bunch of corrupt doctors too. All it would mean is what I've said from the start, which is that every profession has corruption.
By the way, I believe that your original argument was that formal economic training is useless. Now it seems like you're saying instead that economists who work for the state are all scum.

[jonyelmony]

I am pro Free Trade government policies, but would always hope that i could personally always conduct my own matters with not just fairness but out and out generosity. Fair trade as the marketing scheme for say, oxfam is ok, but really no different to any other form of charitable act, without a massive change of heart in the entire population will be completly inneffectual. Fair trade in government poicy is nonsense, fair trade does not make people better off in the third world and that is not the real aim of such policies.


By the way, I would tend to agree Sternhauser with alot you have to say, though i would make some qualitifcations. Much of the mathematical formulations have been created to basically to confirm these arguments. Austrian Economists aversion to maths honestly makes it seem more like ideology then solid economics. All Macro Economics is garbage and honestly has made no progression since 1970, there we can agree. Anything important about the economy can really be explained on the micro level. Ironically enough, this realisation has been one of the first to be destroyed in the crises with economists of all sorts trying to come up with Keynsian solutions to economic policies. To say that Government intervention is never warranted is to be ignorant of the many cases for example Natural monopolies, externalities like climate change when Governement intervention can provide improvements. No government can stop Economic forces from exisiting, hw ever god government can harness them better. This whole financial mess basically comes from information problems between borrowers and lenders in the mortgage market and between banks which traded in these financial instuments. Governement regulation which creates transparency and helps price signals to reflect information better would be welcome additions and may not be considered "free" to some.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='jonyelmony' date='23 September 2009 - 12:44 AM' timestamp='1253681098' post='1971339']
I am pro Free Trade government policies, [/quote]

I believe that is a contradiction. Insofar as the State is directly involved in an economy, there is interference backed up with violence.

[quote]By the way, I would tend to agree Sternhauser with alot you have to say, though i would make some qualitifcations. Much of the mathematical formulations have been created to basically to confirm these arguments. Austrian Economists aversion to maths honestly makes it seem more like ideology then solid economics.[/quote]

Austrians aren't averse to mathematical forumlas in and of themselves, but they must be used properly. Economics is too often used as a prescriptive science. That is not where it excels. It excels in being a descriptive science.


[quote]All Macro Economics is garbage and honestly has made no progression since 1970, there we can agree. Anything important about the economy can really be explained on the micro level. Ironically enough, this realisation has been one of the first to be destroyed in the crises with economists of all sorts trying to come up with Keynsian solutions to economic policies.[/quote]

Agreed.


[quote]To say that Government intervention is never warranted is to be ignorant of the many cases for example Natural monopolies, externalities like climate change when Governement intervention can provide improvements. No government can stop Economic forces from exisiting, hw ever god government can harness them better."[/quote]

To say that State intervention is sometimes warranted is to say that a certain group of men can somehow comprehend and direct the economy, an economy which is comprised of millions of economic decisions made every second by billions of people. That is the claim that State economists make. And it is an arrogant and untenable claim.

[quote]This whole financial mess basically comes from information problemsbetween borrowers and lenders in the mortgage market and between bankswhich traded in these financial instuments. Governement regulationwhich creates transparency and helps price signals to reflectinformation better would be welcome additions and may not be considered"free" to some.
[/quote]

This whole financial mess does not come from information problems. It comes from responsibility problems. The lack of responsibility was only made possible through the abomination of central banking. The information in the market was perfectly clear. Freddie Mac and Fannie May, State chartered morgage institutions, heard this: "You [i]will [/i]make these loans to subprime borrowers." Another piece of information the banks heard loud and clear: "Here is a phenomenally low interest rate, just for you. You can loan out money to anything you want, and you don't need to cover your loans by having anything in reserve, because the State, with its inflation-funded FDIC, has got your back. No worries!" Plenty of people were sounding the alarm bell on the fact that the "boom" was just a bubble. Peter Schiff, Gerald Celente, Jim Rogers. These Austrian economists were laughed at. And they were entirely correct.

"Creating transparency" is among the last thing that the State should do. No institution is better at clouding up clear waters than the State. The Federal Reserve was founded, in great part, to "keep prices stable." Talk about muddying waters by obscuring price signals. Nothing is more confusing than an agency which intervenes in the market to keep all prices where they are. Price fluctuations are precisely what help manufacturers decide when to produce more and when to refrain from producing. An agency that is dedicated to stifling this process, while actually inflating the money supply and thereby bestowing more purchasing power on its vendors than the whole market, is an economy's worst enemy.

~Sternhauser

Edited September 23, 2009 by Sternhauser