jhooper's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.com/user/853759/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/1448811/comments?source=feed#comment-19188301 19188301
That's completely wrong. The US emerged from the Great Depression after the war was over. During the war there was massive austerity. There was rationing of all sorts, not to mention many of the military jobs got you blown to smithereens.

http://bit.ly/12O9rp5

Just once you might want to consider providing some actual evidence for your wild assertions.]]> Thu, 23 May 2013 20:55:19 -0400
That's completely wrong. The US emerged from the Great Depression after the war was over. During the war there was massive austerity. There was rationing of all sorts, not to mention many of the military jobs got you blown to smithereens.

http://bit.ly/12O9rp5

Just once you might want to consider providing some actual evidence for your wild assertions.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1448811/comments?source=feed#comment-19187261 19187261
Well, apparently you do, because you were the one who brought it up, and the reason you brought it up was to make the case that bubbles happened without gov intervention. So now you are acquiesing that credit policies contributed to the commodity bubble, but now are saying that you don't care.

If you are interested in why the Netherlands boomed, you will find that it became the closet thing in Europe to a coercion free economy.

http://bit.ly/18m7WyT

"Austrian School theories are discredited and discarded long time ago."

Well, not they are right on everything, but they are far more reliable that most of the specious claims out of everybody else. Mises was never discredited, he was or less forgotten, having published in German. Also, you are not demonstrating the Austrians did not predict the great depression.

http://bit.ly/10o7COf

"Markets can't exist without government, because somebody should set up the rules and enforce them."

It depends on what you mean by gov. Gov is simply the element of the market where coercion is used to resist coercion. So you are not thinking clearly. Gov is part of the market. That's not the issue. The issue is what does gov do in the market, or rather what does coercion do in the market. The next issue is how is gov incentivized? Does gov have incentives to use its coercion to steal or to protect from stealing?

Coercion is only used to steal or as a defense against stealing. As such, coercion is not a capital creation tool. If no one would steal, then there would be no need for coercion. All human interaction would be voluntary, and all human transactions would occur on the basis of both parties getting richer.

Coercion means one person gets richer and another person gets poorer. In other words, one person inflates and another person deflates. Coercion is the source of inflation, not voluntary transactions. Thus whenever you see one person (or group of people) getting richer while another person (or group of people) getting poorer, the only cause can be that your market is polluted with coercion. Thus if the portion of your market that is considered gov, whos only tool is coercion, is not being used as a defense against coercion, then your gov has become an agent of theft and it will lead to inflation in some asset somewhere.

The problem with your approach is that it is specious not logical. That's why you ramble off in pointless diatribes, and wind up missing the point.

The point is that the use of gov coercion as an agent of theft is likely never to end, thus you know wealth is always going to be transferred somewhere in the economy. The way to protect yourself if figure out the subsidy mix and where it is going to direct the wealth to, and be there when it gets there. Pointless ravings with illogical foundations about unregulated this and unregulated that simply being a time bomb about to blow up might do well if you are a MSNBC host, but it will not assist you in the direction of equities markets and interest rates.]]> Thu, 23 May 2013 20:10:43 -0400
Well, apparently you do, because you were the one who brought it up, and the reason you brought it up was to make the case that bubbles happened without gov intervention. So now you are acquiesing that credit policies contributed to the commodity bubble, but now are saying that you don't care.

If you are interested in why the Netherlands boomed, you will find that it became the closet thing in Europe to a coercion free economy.

http://bit.ly/18m7WyT

"Austrian School theories are discredited and discarded long time ago."

Well, not they are right on everything, but they are far more reliable that most of the specious claims out of everybody else. Mises was never discredited, he was or less forgotten, having published in German. Also, you are not demonstrating the Austrians did not predict the great depression.

http://bit.ly/10o7COf

"Markets can't exist without government, because somebody should set up the rules and enforce them."

It depends on what you mean by gov. Gov is simply the element of the market where coercion is used to resist coercion. So you are not thinking clearly. Gov is part of the market. That's not the issue. The issue is what does gov do in the market, or rather what does coercion do in the market. The next issue is how is gov incentivized? Does gov have incentives to use its coercion to steal or to protect from stealing?

Coercion is only used to steal or as a defense against stealing. As such, coercion is not a capital creation tool. If no one would steal, then there would be no need for coercion. All human interaction would be voluntary, and all human transactions would occur on the basis of both parties getting richer.

Coercion means one person gets richer and another person gets poorer. In other words, one person inflates and another person deflates. Coercion is the source of inflation, not voluntary transactions. Thus whenever you see one person (or group of people) getting richer while another person (or group of people) getting poorer, the only cause can be that your market is polluted with coercion. Thus if the portion of your market that is considered gov, whos only tool is coercion, is not being used as a defense against coercion, then your gov has become an agent of theft and it will lead to inflation in some asset somewhere.

The problem with your approach is that it is specious not logical. That's why you ramble off in pointless diatribes, and wind up missing the point.

The point is that the use of gov coercion as an agent of theft is likely never to end, thus you know wealth is always going to be transferred somewhere in the economy. The way to protect yourself if figure out the subsidy mix and where it is going to direct the wealth to, and be there when it gets there. Pointless ravings with illogical foundations about unregulated this and unregulated that simply being a time bomb about to blow up might do well if you are a MSNBC host, but it will not assist you in the direction of equities markets and interest rates.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1448811/comments?source=feed#comment-19177191 19177191
Indeed. In fact, you can typically find some coercive gov policy behind all types of inflation, including Tulip Mania and the South Seas bubble.

http://bit.ly/SWDoOy

Here is another classic bubble.

http://bit.ly/11fEutV

What you will find is that greed without coercion is just want. Greed combined with coercion means induced capital consumption. In other words, gov's coercive power can get people to spend their capital for consumption. This shows up in a PV of future cash flows, thus justifying the increased asset value. What it doesn't show is a complete balance sheet (GDP is just a measure of spending) that would show the erosion of capital that is boosting that expense number.

What happens is that real income abilities (asset producing activities) don't have the technological level to support that cash flow, and at some point nature forces people to accept the reality. Since capital is smaller, the only offseting entry is a credit to assets. So the entire balance sheet shrinks, or recedes, and thus you have a recession.]]> Thu, 23 May 2013 15:44:23 -0400
Indeed. In fact, you can typically find some coercive gov policy behind all types of inflation, including Tulip Mania and the South Seas bubble.

http://bit.ly/SWDoOy

Here is another classic bubble.

http://bit.ly/11fEutV

What you will find is that greed without coercion is just want. Greed combined with coercion means induced capital consumption. In other words, gov's coercive power can get people to spend their capital for consumption. This shows up in a PV of future cash flows, thus justifying the increased asset value. What it doesn't show is a complete balance sheet (GDP is just a measure of spending) that would show the erosion of capital that is boosting that expense number.

What happens is that real income abilities (asset producing activities) don't have the technological level to support that cash flow, and at some point nature forces people to accept the reality. Since capital is smaller, the only offseting entry is a credit to assets. So the entire balance sheet shrinks, or recedes, and thus you have a recession.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/currents/post/1042291?source=feed#comment-19158691 19158691 Thu, 23 May 2013 09:31:05 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1448811/comments?source=feed#comment-19157011 19157011 Thu, 23 May 2013 09:01:31 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1448811/comments?source=feed#comment-19155511 19155511
No he is referring to the inflationary policies available to a gov via its grant of coercion. That grant of coercion is what allows greedy people in gov and those that finance them being there to afford the ability of their greed to inflate asset values that benefit them, while deflating the assets of those that don't benefit them.

Using mouth foaming euphimistic slurs such as "Cowboy Capitalism" and "Wall Street Greed" may play well on Oprah or the View, but it will do little to explain the very real forces that are acting upon asset values in markets, and thus leave you vulnerable to their machinations.]]> Thu, 23 May 2013 08:24:25 -0400
No he is referring to the inflationary policies available to a gov via its grant of coercion. That grant of coercion is what allows greedy people in gov and those that finance them being there to afford the ability of their greed to inflate asset values that benefit them, while deflating the assets of those that don't benefit them.

Using mouth foaming euphimistic slurs such as "Cowboy Capitalism" and "Wall Street Greed" may play well on Oprah or the View, but it will do little to explain the very real forces that are acting upon asset values in markets, and thus leave you vulnerable to their machinations.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1448811/comments?source=feed#comment-19154041 19154041
J.P. Morgan orchestrated rescue. And, BTW, lobbied creation of Fed, because he understood that next time voluntary rescue by the banks might not happen."

Which ignores Lyman J Gage and LM Shaw using the Treas as a faux central bank. They were basically engaged in QE and ZIRP from 1901 to 1907 via the US Treas, which led to inflated asset values, and when Shaw and Gage left (to go back into banking - their reward), the result was a change in the subsidy mix and the subsequent collapse in asset values in 1907.

The lesson here is that only gov can cause a system wide asset inflation with its ability to subsidize consumption. It will create a period of inflation in some asset class depending on the economic environment, and at some point the bubble will burst. The bust will be caused by some natural force in the market forcing the correction, but more often than not, it will be a subsequent mistake by people in gov that don't have a clue about the powers with which they are dealing, like BB inverting the yield curve in 2006 and bringing on the real estate collapse and recession.]]> Thu, 23 May 2013 07:19:33 -0400
J.P. Morgan orchestrated rescue. And, BTW, lobbied creation of Fed, because he understood that next time voluntary rescue by the banks might not happen."

Which ignores Lyman J Gage and LM Shaw using the Treas as a faux central bank. They were basically engaged in QE and ZIRP from 1901 to 1907 via the US Treas, which led to inflated asset values, and when Shaw and Gage left (to go back into banking - their reward), the result was a change in the subsidy mix and the subsequent collapse in asset values in 1907.

The lesson here is that only gov can cause a system wide asset inflation with its ability to subsidize consumption. It will create a period of inflation in some asset class depending on the economic environment, and at some point the bubble will burst. The bust will be caused by some natural force in the market forcing the correction, but more often than not, it will be a subsequent mistake by people in gov that don't have a clue about the powers with which they are dealing, like BB inverting the yield curve in 2006 and bringing on the real estate collapse and recession.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/currents/post/1039761?source=feed#comment-19118901 19118901 Wed, 22 May 2013 11:15:46 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/283977-focalpoint-analytics/1772021-stability-of-the-european-union-19-april-18-2013-to?source=feed#comment-19114861 19114861 Wed, 22 May 2013 10:00:12 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/currents/post/1039761?source=feed#comment-19114561 19114561 Wed, 22 May 2013 09:55:31 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/940657-jakurtz/1502241-political-quickchat-6-jan-30-2013?source=feed#comment-19114091 19114091
So a majority of the populace is no longer concerned with scandal. Scandal implies that you can't trust the person to do the right thing. The right thing means protecting people's rights. Rights mean ownership in the assets your labor creates. The majority no longer cares about rights. They only care about taking what they can with their neighbor. They vote for people to go to Washington, and use gov guns to take their neighbors property and deliver it to them.

That's why scandal is irrelevant, and why they are happy about what the IRS has done or wars that cost way more than they should. All we have now are competing groups that are only unified on one thing - who gets to control gov coercion to transfer their neighbor's wealth into their pockets.

So as long as Obama or Bush or Weiner or Wrangel or Reid or whoever can deliver one person's wealth to whoever votes for the wealth deliverer, then scandal is irrelevant. If you can create a dependent class and give them just enough to get buy with cell phones, video games, and flat screen TVs in gov housing and gov school, then you have people that will keep you in office long enough for you to favor one producer of TVs and their union that allows you to become a mega millionaire like Clinton, Gore, Reid, and eventually Obama.

We are watching how you create an aristocracy or an elite ruling class that has the monopoly of coercion and a broad peasant class. Its too late to stop the trajectory. Even if the US broke up its Union, the states breaking away would be right back where we are now in a few decades. The best hope you have is to find some way to be become of the ruling class or part of the secondary class that serves the ruling class, like bond traders, tax acctountants/attorneys, compliance consultants, political strategists, or one of the members of one of the favored businesses.

The days of starting out small with a great idea for a product are practically over. The rise of the coercive society is going to choke it off. For those that whine about income inequality now, you haven't seen anything yet. Chavez wen't into office a poor politician promising equality. He died a billionaire, and only the general populace had an equality of poverty. The US is next. In fact, its already happening.]]> Wed, 22 May 2013 09:49:27 -0400
So a majority of the populace is no longer concerned with scandal. Scandal implies that you can't trust the person to do the right thing. The right thing means protecting people's rights. Rights mean ownership in the assets your labor creates. The majority no longer cares about rights. They only care about taking what they can with their neighbor. They vote for people to go to Washington, and use gov guns to take their neighbors property and deliver it to them.

That's why scandal is irrelevant, and why they are happy about what the IRS has done or wars that cost way more than they should. All we have now are competing groups that are only unified on one thing - who gets to control gov coercion to transfer their neighbor's wealth into their pockets.

So as long as Obama or Bush or Weiner or Wrangel or Reid or whoever can deliver one person's wealth to whoever votes for the wealth deliverer, then scandal is irrelevant. If you can create a dependent class and give them just enough to get buy with cell phones, video games, and flat screen TVs in gov housing and gov school, then you have people that will keep you in office long enough for you to favor one producer of TVs and their union that allows you to become a mega millionaire like Clinton, Gore, Reid, and eventually Obama.

We are watching how you create an aristocracy or an elite ruling class that has the monopoly of coercion and a broad peasant class. Its too late to stop the trajectory. Even if the US broke up its Union, the states breaking away would be right back where we are now in a few decades. The best hope you have is to find some way to be become of the ruling class or part of the secondary class that serves the ruling class, like bond traders, tax acctountants/attorneys, compliance consultants, political strategists, or one of the members of one of the favored businesses.

The days of starting out small with a great idea for a product are practically over. The rise of the coercive society is going to choke it off. For those that whine about income inequality now, you haven't seen anything yet. Chavez wen't into office a poor politician promising equality. He died a billionaire, and only the general populace had an equality of poverty. The US is next. In fact, its already happening.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/940657-jakurtz/1502241-political-quickchat-6-jan-30-2013?source=feed#comment-19086751 19086751
Gov is just a security force to protect you from coercion. Trying to have it be some unifying force that attempts to use coercion to get us all to have the same personal preferences can never work. Gov can protect rights (which is how we say ownership rights), but it cannot not mandate values (like declaring everyone should contribute to a charity to help the poor).

Doing so only creates the mess we have today, because what you get is everybody at everyone else's throat as they all try to use gov to enforce their personal preferences on everybody else. The US is just a few years away from political prisoners (whoops, your nonprofit group filed your form wrong, the law says you owe $10 million in taxes, since you can't pay, you go to jail).

This is why you don't see any socialist economies in the world. They would all be at each other's throat in a matter of days, as everyone attempted to live off everyone else. All economies have to have an element of captialism in order to survive. This is why Finland and Denmark rank higher in economic freedom than the US does. If they were totally socialist, they couldn't survive.

I expect the days are numbered for the UNITED States. The question may really be which union breaks up first - European or US. Republican or Democrat doesn't matter anymore. The only real division between people are Coercive and Voluntarists. The Coercives are winning as they occupy the majority of both Democrat and Republican, and their victory will be everyone's eventual loss.]]> Tue, 21 May 2013 15:56:30 -0400
Gov is just a security force to protect you from coercion. Trying to have it be some unifying force that attempts to use coercion to get us all to have the same personal preferences can never work. Gov can protect rights (which is how we say ownership rights), but it cannot not mandate values (like declaring everyone should contribute to a charity to help the poor).

Doing so only creates the mess we have today, because what you get is everybody at everyone else's throat as they all try to use gov to enforce their personal preferences on everybody else. The US is just a few years away from political prisoners (whoops, your nonprofit group filed your form wrong, the law says you owe $10 million in taxes, since you can't pay, you go to jail).

This is why you don't see any socialist economies in the world. They would all be at each other's throat in a matter of days, as everyone attempted to live off everyone else. All economies have to have an element of captialism in order to survive. This is why Finland and Denmark rank higher in economic freedom than the US does. If they were totally socialist, they couldn't survive.

I expect the days are numbered for the UNITED States. The question may really be which union breaks up first - European or US. Republican or Democrat doesn't matter anymore. The only real division between people are Coercive and Voluntarists. The Coercives are winning as they occupy the majority of both Democrat and Republican, and their victory will be everyone's eventual loss.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/940657-jakurtz/1502241-political-quickchat-6-jan-30-2013?source=feed#comment-19081321 19081321 Tue, 21 May 2013 14:25:38 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1449071/comments?source=feed#comment-19068561 19068561
"So what exactly is this mystery investment that is forming a major bubble today? It is gold (GLD). But it's not gold from the long side. It's gold from the short side."]]> Tue, 21 May 2013 09:43:23 -0400
"So what exactly is this mystery investment that is forming a major bubble today? It is gold (GLD). But it's not gold from the long side. It's gold from the short side."]]> http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/283977-focalpoint-analytics/1772021-stability-of-the-european-union-19-april-18-2013-to?source=feed#comment-18892401 18892401 Thu, 16 May 2013 09:19:59 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/283977-focalpoint-analytics/1772021-stability-of-the-european-union-19-april-18-2013-to?source=feed#comment-18892331 18892331 Thu, 16 May 2013 09:19:09 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/283977-focalpoint-analytics/1772021-stability-of-the-european-union-19-april-18-2013-to?source=feed#comment-18892291 18892291 Thu, 16 May 2013 09:18:16 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/283977-focalpoint-analytics/1772021-stability-of-the-european-union-19-april-18-2013-to?source=feed#comment-18892261 18892261 Thu, 16 May 2013 09:17:53 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1432471/comments?source=feed#comment-18799531 18799531 Tue, 14 May 2013 06:02:11 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1066991/comments?source=feed#comment-18678261 18678261 Fri, 10 May 2013 12:15:36 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1405781/comments?source=feed#comment-18594541 18594541
I've already done that.]]> Wed, 08 May 2013 16:21:29 -0400
I've already done that.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/283977-focalpoint-analytics/1772021-stability-of-the-european-union-19-april-18-2013-to?source=feed#comment-18582731 18582731
In short, if they had the most Federalized system, where the govs only worked to protect property rights and nothing else, what you would get is a market for govs that only protect property rights, which would mean competition between the lower levels of gov as to who could be the most efficient in protecting property rights.

By doing this, they would become the worlds haven for capital and labor, and oil would become a tiny sliver of their economy. They aren't educated to think this way, so they will just have to be happy wasting their oil money on some price blind gov scheme.]]> Wed, 08 May 2013 12:16:18 -0400
In short, if they had the most Federalized system, where the govs only worked to protect property rights and nothing else, what you would get is a market for govs that only protect property rights, which would mean competition between the lower levels of gov as to who could be the most efficient in protecting property rights.

By doing this, they would become the worlds haven for capital and labor, and oil would become a tiny sliver of their economy. They aren't educated to think this way, so they will just have to be happy wasting their oil money on some price blind gov scheme.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/283977-focalpoint-analytics/1772021-stability-of-the-european-union-19-april-18-2013-to?source=feed#comment-18577571 18577571
Yes. I used to live in North Pole, Alaska. In summer the days were long, but the light was very weak, although it did get into the 90s sometimes. In December the sun would come up around 10:30, skirt along the horizon and then be gone by 3:30 or so.

You had to plug your battery in during the day in the winter, because the gold would kill the chemical reactions. I wonder how the EVs hold up in the cold. I'm thinking its time for a class action lawsuit against the EV mfgs for false advertising against the hapless consumer.]]> Wed, 08 May 2013 10:45:24 -0400
Yes. I used to live in North Pole, Alaska. In summer the days were long, but the light was very weak, although it did get into the 90s sometimes. In December the sun would come up around 10:30, skirt along the horizon and then be gone by 3:30 or so.

You had to plug your battery in during the day in the winter, because the gold would kill the chemical reactions. I wonder how the EVs hold up in the cold. I'm thinking its time for a class action lawsuit against the EV mfgs for false advertising against the hapless consumer.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/283977-focalpoint-analytics/1772021-stability-of-the-european-union-19-april-18-2013-to?source=feed#comment-18573591 18573591
I would not be surprised to see them invest it in solar panels. Norway would be a great place for that.]]> Wed, 08 May 2013 09:39:16 -0400
I would not be surprised to see them invest it in solar panels. Norway would be a great place for that.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1405781/comments?source=feed#comment-18551551 18551551
If you are including the cartelized banking system driven by the Fed Res, there is something to that. In general a central bank is a consumption subsidy. That means one area of the economy will inflate and another will deflate. Nature will not tolerate this situation forever because the inflation is not supported by increases in income to support the inflated asset price. Thus, all it takes is some macro shift, often brought about by the Fed itself, to cause the inevitable correction.

http://onforb.es/17xyIDT]]> Tue, 07 May 2013 16:12:32 -0400
If you are including the cartelized banking system driven by the Fed Res, there is something to that. In general a central bank is a consumption subsidy. That means one area of the economy will inflate and another will deflate. Nature will not tolerate this situation forever because the inflation is not supported by increases in income to support the inflated asset price. Thus, all it takes is some macro shift, often brought about by the Fed itself, to cause the inevitable correction.

http://onforb.es/17xyIDT]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/985951/comments?source=feed#comment-18531101 18531101
This...

http://bit.ly/X5QcTf

Leads to this...

http://bit.ly/XUvuD8

Which leads to this...

http://bit.ly/YKTfQb]]> Tue, 07 May 2013 09:26:20 -0400
This...

http://bit.ly/X5QcTf

Leads to this...

http://bit.ly/XUvuD8

Which leads to this...

http://bit.ly/YKTfQb]]> http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/283977-focalpoint-analytics/1772021-stability-of-the-european-union-19-april-18-2013-to?source=feed#comment-18435331 18435331 Sat, 04 May 2013 06:20:29 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/283977-focalpoint-analytics/1772021-stability-of-the-european-union-19-april-18-2013-to?source=feed#comment-18435301 18435301 Sat, 04 May 2013 06:16:10 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/985951/comments?source=feed#comment-18404951 18404951
You have to add, "with additional stimulus from monetary policy that is providing a consumption subsidy for equity prices."

That last bit is critical, because if you don't understand that impact, then you won't be able to understand that neither BB or Yellen don't understand it either. So they can pull the subsidy out from underneath of you, like they did in 2006, and you could get caught without a chair when the music stops.

What you are also missing is Bastiats seen and the unseen. This makes you vulnerable to specious reasoning. So you will say, "see we have the current regime and markets and productivity are going up, ergo its the current regime causing that".

When in reality, its the current regime holding the markets and productivity back from what they could be, thus making the stimulus from the Fed necessary to get equity prices to where they are. What would happen instead in a freer market is equity prices would be double what they are, productivity would be double what it is, and your standard of living would also be double.

That's your problem with your definition of utopia. You have defined it as a situation as perfect production. Utopia for a coercion free market, is operating at the peak of the production possibilities frontier. That doesn't mean we have perfect production knowledge, but it does mean we operate PERFECTLY at what we can because we are as PERFECTLY sensitive to prices as we can be.

So, yes that means the perfect extreme of a completely coercion free market would never exist, because you will never have perfect production knowledge. Just as a totally coerced market can never exist. That would make you totally blind to prices and everyone would starve in short order.

What you want is to perfectly produce as best you can based on being as perfectly sensitive to prices as you can be.

Assuming that coercion can somehow find happy medium between no productivity and operating perfectly at the peak of the production possibilities frontier is a specious assumption that doesn't stand up to logical and reasonable scrutiny.

That is just something the people that don't understand the role of coercion in life will have to live with.]]> Fri, 03 May 2013 11:24:26 -0400
You have to add, "with additional stimulus from monetary policy that is providing a consumption subsidy for equity prices."

That last bit is critical, because if you don't understand that impact, then you won't be able to understand that neither BB or Yellen don't understand it either. So they can pull the subsidy out from underneath of you, like they did in 2006, and you could get caught without a chair when the music stops.

What you are also missing is Bastiats seen and the unseen. This makes you vulnerable to specious reasoning. So you will say, "see we have the current regime and markets and productivity are going up, ergo its the current regime causing that".

When in reality, its the current regime holding the markets and productivity back from what they could be, thus making the stimulus from the Fed necessary to get equity prices to where they are. What would happen instead in a freer market is equity prices would be double what they are, productivity would be double what it is, and your standard of living would also be double.

That's your problem with your definition of utopia. You have defined it as a situation as perfect production. Utopia for a coercion free market, is operating at the peak of the production possibilities frontier. That doesn't mean we have perfect production knowledge, but it does mean we operate PERFECTLY at what we can because we are as PERFECTLY sensitive to prices as we can be.

So, yes that means the perfect extreme of a completely coercion free market would never exist, because you will never have perfect production knowledge. Just as a totally coerced market can never exist. That would make you totally blind to prices and everyone would starve in short order.

What you want is to perfectly produce as best you can based on being as perfectly sensitive to prices as you can be.

Assuming that coercion can somehow find happy medium between no productivity and operating perfectly at the peak of the production possibilities frontier is a specious assumption that doesn't stand up to logical and reasonable scrutiny.

That is just something the people that don't understand the role of coercion in life will have to live with.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/985951/comments?source=feed#comment-18395481 18395481
Well that's part of the analysis. As long as the regulatory taxes don't totally kill your price sensitive productivity, you will always get productivity gains. Its human instinct. Even in places like Cuba or N Korea, there are slight advancements even though for practical purposes they are at a standstill.

So there will be places in worldwide markets where markets are freer of bling gov taxation and those that live under heavier gov taxation. You have to factor all of it in the analysis (at least as best you can) to come up with how asset prices will be affected.

If we had a totally free market, that is a market free of all coercion, that would make the market as sensitive to price as it possibly could be. Productivity would grow at a parabolic rate, and the S&P would be at 2500. You and I would only need to work 10 hrs a week, and could retire at 40. So real productivity is what makes the market go up.

You can also mimic this increase as long as there is some productivity that has not been killed in the market by gov taxation by using gov coercion to influence Fed notes to chase equities. BB has admitted to as much.]]> Fri, 03 May 2013 08:17:39 -0400
Well that's part of the analysis. As long as the regulatory taxes don't totally kill your price sensitive productivity, you will always get productivity gains. Its human instinct. Even in places like Cuba or N Korea, there are slight advancements even though for practical purposes they are at a standstill.

So there will be places in worldwide markets where markets are freer of bling gov taxation and those that live under heavier gov taxation. You have to factor all of it in the analysis (at least as best you can) to come up with how asset prices will be affected.

If we had a totally free market, that is a market free of all coercion, that would make the market as sensitive to price as it possibly could be. Productivity would grow at a parabolic rate, and the S&P would be at 2500. You and I would only need to work 10 hrs a week, and could retire at 40. So real productivity is what makes the market go up.

You can also mimic this increase as long as there is some productivity that has not been killed in the market by gov taxation by using gov coercion to influence Fed notes to chase equities. BB has admitted to as much.]]>