alajac

The Intrinsic Value of Nothing, Part 1

Both the Austrian and Hamiltonian systems are based on lies. See my previous post for argumentation.


On Oct 29 12:45 PM RiskAverseAlert wrote:

> Still, sir, I have said this before in this forum and I should say
> it again: the Austrian school is one whose principles best suit a
> fascist social arrangement, whereas a Hamiltonian credit system best
> suits a nation whose foundational principle seeks to form a more
> perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide
> for the common defence, promote the general Welfare and secure the
> Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

The Intrinsic Value of Nothing, Part 1

John Lounsbury,
You make a good and very important point, even if you are not arguing it as elegantly as my anal mind requires.

"Intrinsic value" is not the same as "utility value": yes, things like air and food have a UTILITARIAN value for beings with bodies that need such things in order to continue surviving, but that is NOT the same thing as intrinsic value in and of itself regardless of whether humans exist or not (which is what Paco said in the 2nd paragraph of his "Good Theory": "I want you to try to imagine a universe in which no sentient creatures exist. How much would a “car” be worth?").

Which points put the whole problem with Austrian economics (which is also your main point) : it only works in a world where people aren't made of flesh and bone that must be fed and clothed. In our REAL world, whoever is the furthest economically from destitution ALWAYS has the better bargaining position and can ALWAYS hold out for a better deal, and thus there is NEVER an exchange with both parties "willing participants": one is always MORE extorted BY LIFE to strike a bad deal than the other. "The other" is often a corporation, as corporations are actually NON corporeal (kind of a misnomer there), and thus do not need to consume anything but the lives of their employees.

And that is why "Austrian economics" and "physics" should NEVER be mentioned together in the same sentence except to point out that "with one, you can do stuff" (like annihilate innocent Japanese civilians and American POWs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki), and "with the other one, you can't".

That said, try this for size: nobody (especially including "the Austrians") has come up with a commonsense definition of government that is infinitely scaleable, such as

Government: "One or more persons who claim natural resources, are willing and able to defend their claim on those resources, and make and enforce decisions regarding the allocation of those resources."

Per that definition, EVERY government is the "de facto" owner of everything (including EVERYONE) within its domain (governments subsequently create "de jure" ownership in order to get resources into the hands they believe will be most productive and thus most conducive to the government's prosperity and longevity), and thus no government EVER needs to borrow to fund its operations and to facilitate commerce (except for foreign exchange, a topic we will address at a later date); all it needs to do is to "monetize" the wealth it already owns. Our government's creation of "a monopoly over money" and its relinquishment (to the Federal Reserve central bank in 1913) of the creation of money were due to the fact that the banking industry assumed ownership of the U.S. Federal Government after "We, the People" lost the SECOND American Revolution (usually referred to as "Shays' Rebellion") and have used the U.S. Federal Government ever since to enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else (major corporations and media being "virtual subsidiaries" of the banking industry due to their need for financing to fund their operations), mainly by means of loaning us our own money "at interest", a process which has resulted in the transfer of 95% of the value of the 1913 dollar into the pockets of U.S. Treasury bondholders.

Several things need to happen to address the situation in which we currently find ourselves:

1. Take the printing press back from the U.S. central bank (the Fed), and legalize a "free market" in banking and money while removing all of the government support and protections the banks currently enjoy. The new money will be mainly electronic ("e-bucks", credited to a debit account for every economic entity, as needed), with maybe some 1's (with Tom Paine's picture on them) in circulation.

2. Existing Federal Reserve dollars are to be taken in and credited in the new e-bucks and then used to retire the U.S. National Debt. In order to address the wealth disparity that has resulted from the last 200 years of "banking ownership of everyone else", we may want to limit the amount of Fed dollars we credit from any one particular economic entity (like "Goldman Sachs" or "China"); those enties could either hold on to their Fed dollars or else trade them in via their depositors, shareholders, or citizens by distributing their excess Fed dollars in equal amounts to those entities.

3. Implement a version of Tom Paine's "Agrarian Justice" plan (modified to incorporate the above "commonsense definition of government") by sending every legal resident at least $1000 per month as compensation for their government's impairment of their "right to free access to land". (Minus such a right, a "right to life" is nothing but an empty phrase and a free ticket to "the land of wage slavery".) This compensation should and must replace ALL other forms of corporate and personal welfare and subsidies.

4. Head off inflation by charging an "infrastructure maintenance fee" of up to 1% (but probably much less) on every electronic debit transaction (whatever is required to remove as much money as is being added each month). Eliminate ALL income-based federal taxation (and the IRS as well).

On Oct 27 10:58 AM John Lounsbury wrote:

> Paco - - -
>
> Good article, but I have a philosophical bone to pick.
>
> You wrote:
>
> "Nothing in this universe has intrinsic value; every single thing
> you possess, want to possess, use, can use, have used, can offer,
> have offered, or will offer is valuable only if someone else finds
> it valuable."
>
> You have defined value in terms of exchange. I would argue that is
> too narrow a definition. There are things with intrinsic value independent
> of any medium of exchange. Exchange is merely one way, but not the
> only way, to define value.
>
> I maintain that anything necessary for my existence has intrinsic
> value. Air to breathe, water to drink and food to eat have intrinsic
> value. The value has a binary measurement: either I have these things
> and exist or one is missing and I don't exist.
>
> Most economists make their definitions based on commerce. The basics
> of existence don't come into the equation, except for a few fringe
> operatives who play with things like "happiness indexes".
>
> Ultimately, all of the "commercial" definitions of value are secondary
> to the "existence" definition of value. We lose sight of that and
> many externalities result, which repetitively blow apart the best
> of economic theories. Throughout history societies and civilizations
> have failed because of resource exhaustion. They thrived on commerce
> and decayed on the basis of not sufficiently supporting existence.
>
>
> There absolutely are things with a real intrinsic value.
>
> I know this is outside the scope you intended to address, but I just
> had to have my rant.

More Fed Reserve Notes Intended for Wall Street

derryl,
First thing to figure out is "what is a government?"

"Government is any entity that claims natural resources and turns them into 'property' by allocating their use and by being willing and able to defend that claim". Whether one guy on the Moon or the Galactic Federation, that definition covers it.

What it also says is that governments own all the natural resources (including humans and sub-governments) within their 'realm of protection'; if you can't defend your claimed resources from ANY foreign invasion, then you don't really own them.

Governments create a tool (called 'money') in order to facilitate exchange. That's all it is. Anybody who wants to argue that "only central banks can create money" is obviously on the payroll of a central banker or a fore-runner of same (as were most of the signers of the US Constitution). I have a plan to fix the economy. Just look at my various SA comments for more info or email alan_jacquemotte@yahoo...