NAZI GREENS - An Inconvenient History • Martin Durkin

a reply to: seeker1963

And we know where some of that money ends up don't we ?

Shelling out tax dollars for studying kids getting drunk, and having unprotected sex. HIgh end furniture for the EPA., and teaching Chinese hookers to drink 'responsibly'.

LOL.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: seeker1963

And we know where some of that money ends up don't we ?

Shelling out tax dollars for studying kids getting drunk, and having unprotected sex. HIgh end furniture for the EPA., and teaching Chinese hookers to drink 'responsibly'.

LOL.

But for the Senators and Congresspersons in the states they represent, THEY ARE HERO'S for bringing in money and jobs to the state they represent?

Man, crazy world is just getting so damn crazy, I am having a hard time keeping up anymore. Hero's on the state level for those who elected you, but spend thrifts on the Federal level who are spending money frivolously. As much as we may hate our government? I do believe we have a responsibility on a state level to tell them to take their shovels and scissors and go back to Washington where they pretend they are spending our money wisely.

No lie! I live in PA, and I see our Senator's and Congressman come back to their homestate to brag how they helped to get a business that will employ 100 people at $10 an hour like it's a huge accomplishment! I don't get it?

a reply to: Semicollegiate

Actually perfect competition/rational man comes from classical economics and pre-dates Keynes by about 150 years. Fractional reserve banking is even older.

Trying to define externalities in terms of property rights may sound nice in theory but in practise is simply unworkable and ridiculous (unless you really love lawyers).

For monopolies how do you deal with economies of scale or barriers to entry (those property rights you are so keen on for example)

Also are you really arguing that majority people were better off or freer during the industrial revolution than they are now?

a reply to: ScepticScot

Yes, homo economicus and the evenly rotating economy are flawed hypothetical concepts carried over from classical economists.

They continue to be referred to regardless but, they cannot inform us about real human behavior.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Semicollegiate

If that were true I wouldn't pay income taxes or have a Social Security number. Lefties are always imposing their beliefs upon others.

Can we then say that the constitution, which allows for the laying of taxes, is a Leftist document?

All of the Anti-Federalists thought so. The AF thought it to be the despot's nose under the tent.

No pro constitution candidate was elected to the presidency from 1800 to 1840. The 1840 collectivist president, a Whig -- William Henry Harrison, died in office after a few months. Between 1800 and Father Abraham the Mystical Collectivist Unionizer, there were only two pro constitution Presidents, serving 4 and a half years in total, or about 8% of the time.

ETA -- The fraction of the US establishment that made the Central Banks, the Tariff, and the Constitution compares to the German Junkers in the OPs article.

Nonsense. The state does not have mystical powers and cannot all the needs and wants of the people. That's just ignorant hyperbole.

There is no reason for the State other than a belief in its magical powers.

a reply to: greencmp

Would I be safe to assume from your Hayek quote that your economics are generally in line with the Austrian School. Sorry for asking a slightly off topic question but have an interest in what economics people have actually read even if I don't agree with it.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Yes, I am a relative late comer to actually reading Mises "Human Action" and familiarizing myself more broadly with Austrian economics but, I have been reading a lot and have been generally libertarian the whole time before I even knew it.

I thought I was a liberal, turns out I was right but someone edited the dictionary.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."

-Friedrich Hayek

a reply to: greencmp

While I disagree with a lot of the conclusions of Austrian economics I think it often asks very interesting questions regarding the methodology and assumptions of conventional economics.
I also find your comment interesting as I am interested in whether peoples economics influences their political/social views or if it is that people choose to believe the economic theory that best suits their politics. If I am honest I don't even know the answer with regard myself.
Thanks for indulging my interest.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Actually perfect competition/rational man comes from classical economics and pre-dates Keynes by about 150 years. Fractional reserve banking is even older.

Trying to define externalities in terms of property rights may sound nice in theory but in practise is simply unworkable and ridiculous (unless you really love lawyers).

How did the government make any difference?

People were paid or they weren't. They would have been paid more if there were no taxes.

For monopolies how do you deal with economies of scale or barriers to entry (those property rights you are so keen on for example)

If it ever actually happens, it never has, the market will find a solution. I don't know what the solution might be.

Rockefeller reduced the price of kerosene from about $1 per gallon to $0.10 per gallon. The "Anti Trust" action against him had more to do with stealing his money than "protecting" the consumer.

Everything reduced in price during the course of the 19th century. The gold backed money kept its value, so capitalism yielded more than 100% increase in money to everyone. And the government "saved" us from that.

Also are you really arguing that majority people were better off or freer during the industrial revolution than they are now?

Which emperor had a TV, air conditioning, a car, and a doctor before the industrial revolution?

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: greencmp

While I disagree with a lot of the conclusions of Austrian economics I think it often asks very interesting questions regarding the methodology and assumptions of conventional economics.
I also find your comment interesting as I am interested in whether peoples economics influences their political/social views or if it is that people choose to believe the economic theory that best suits their politics. If I am honest I don't even know the answer with regard myself.
Thanks for indulging my interest.

Hey, I assumed that was why we we're all here, to ask the difficult questions.

They may have been the eco-weenies of their day but it didn't stop them from leveling everything in their path.
I suppose the destruction of farmland was simply to break up the soil on a large scale so they could begin the replanting effort in earnest. Hitler did promise everyone a car, the VW and he delivered. This must have been his idea of job creation.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: greencmp

While I disagree with a lot of the conclusions of Austrian economics I think it often asks very interesting questions regarding the methodology and assumptions of conventional economics.
I also find your comment interesting as I am interested in whether peoples economics influences their political/social views or if it is that people choose to believe the economic theory that best suits their politics. If I am honest I don't even know the answer with regard myself.
Thanks for indulging my interest.

I know what you mean.

I can't say I can prove Austrian Economics, but it always comes up with a reasonable answer, so far. And its method applies well to history and sociology too.

The core of Austrian Economics is that people will do what they want to. They will always choose what they think is the best or most fun.

The core of Socialism is that people will do what they should, so as to keep the machine fair and equal.

That is somewhere in the first chapter or so in Human Action by Ludwig von Mises

Must sign off for the evening (is late this side of Atlantic). Thanks for unusually polite and interesting debate.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Good night Sceptic, a pleasure.

-slàinte

a reply to: greencmp

We have made some progress here on ATS of late regarding the nature of socialism and its various incarnations in recent history. I hope that the myth of fascism not being socialism has been laid to rest.

Not this again. As for the rest, Germany invented forest management in the 19th century. It had nothing to do with the Nazis. Instead, the Nazis exploited a hackneyed trope from the German Romantic movement to further their right wing nationalist agenda, and to encourage young people to hike... conditioning them for all the marching and counter-marching they would soon be doing.

Incidentally, have you ever seen a modern German forest? There is nothing natural about them.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: greencmp

While I disagree with a lot of the conclusions of Austrian economics I think it often asks very interesting questions regarding the methodology and assumptions of conventional economics.
I also find your comment interesting as I am interested in whether peoples economics influences their political/social views or if it is that people choose to believe the economic theory that best suits their politics. If I am honest I don't even know the answer with regard myself.
Thanks for indulging my interest.

I know what you mean.

I can't say I can prove Austrian Economics, but it always comes up with a reasonable answer, so far. And its method applies well to history and sociology too.

The core of Austrian Economics is that people will do what they want to. They will always choose what they think is the best or most fun.

The core of Socialism is that people will do what they should, so as to keep the machine fair and equal.

That is somewhere in the first chapter or so in Human Action by Ludwig von Mises

It's funny how we both dance around the terminology, I have yet to actually attempt to do a thread on praxeology.

For now, the term economics seems as snooty as I want to risk!

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
The core of Austrian Economics is that people will do what they want to. They will always choose what they think is the best or most fun.

What is best and what they should is the same thing and the reason both ideas fail.

a reply to: daskakik

The crux is that the "best", and therefore the "should", is different for everybody.

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: greencmp

While I disagree with a lot of the conclusions of Austrian economics I think it often asks very interesting questions regarding the methodology and assumptions of conventional economics.
I also find your comment interesting as I am interested in whether peoples economics influences their political/social views or if it is that people choose to believe the economic theory that best suits their politics. If I am honest I don't even know the answer with regard myself.
Thanks for indulging my interest.

I know what you mean.

I can't say I can prove Austrian Economics, but it always comes up with a reasonable answer, so far. And its method applies well to history and sociology too.

The core of Austrian Economics is that people will do what they want to. They will always choose what they think is the best or most fun.

The core of Socialism is that people will do what they should, so as to keep the machine fair and equal.

That is somewhere in the first chapter or so in Human Action by Ludwig von Mises

It's funny how we both dance around the terminology, I have yet to actually attempt to do a thread on praxeology.

For now, the term economics seems as snooty as I want to risk!

I have not studied Praxeology specifically.

I read the other day that logic is for validating propositions, logic is not for determining goals.

I guess I better get started on praxeology.

See You Later

a reply to: Semicollegiate

Cool, Kant is a great resource for explaining a priori but, Human Action is the premiere praxeological tome near as I can tell.

Experience tells us, indeed, what is, but not that it must necessarily be so, and not otherwise. It therefore gives us no true universality; and reason, which is so insistent upon this kind of knowledge, is therefore more stimulated by it than satisfied. Such universal modes of knowledge, which at the same time possess the character of inner necessity, must in themselves, independently of experience, be clear and certain. They are therefore entitled knowledge a priori; whereas, on the other hand, that which is borrowed solely from experience is, as we say, known only a posteriori, or empirically. Now we find, what is especially noteworthy, that even into our experiences there enter modes of knowledge which must have their origin a priori, and which perhaps serve only to give coherence to our sense-representations. For if we eliminate from our experiences everything which belongs to the senses, there still remain certain original concepts and certain judgments derived from them, which must have arisen completely a priori, independently of experience, inasmuch as they enable us to say, or at least lead us to believe that we can say, in regard to the objects which appear to the senses, more than mere experience would teach -- giving to assertions true universality and strict necessity, such as mere empirical knowledge cannot supply.

The expression 'a priori' does not, however, indicate with sufficient precision the full meaning of our question. For it has been customary to say, even of much knowledge that is derived from empirical sources, that we have it or are capable of having it a priori, meaning thereby that we do not derive it immediately from experience, but from a universal rule -- a rule which is itself, however, borrowed by us from experience. Thus we would say of a man who undermined the foundations of his house, that he might have known a priori that it would fall, that is, that he need not have waited for the experience of its actual falling. But still he could not know this completely a priori. For he had first to learn through experience that bodies are heavy, and therefore fall when their supports are withdrawn. In what follows, therefore, we shall understand by a priori knowledge, not knowledge independent of this or that experience, but knowledge absolutely independent of all experience. Opposed to it is empirical knowledge, which is knowledge possible only a posteriori, that is, through experience. A - priori modes of knowledge are entitled pure when there is no admixture of anything empirical. Thus, for instance, the proposition, 'every alteration has its cause', while an a priori proposition, is not a pure proposition, because alteration is a concept which can be derived only from experience.

See you!