The correspondence theory is often traced back to Aristotle’s well-known definition of truth (Metaphysics 1011b25): “To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true” — Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

“Although he nowhere defines truth in terms of a thought’s likeness to a thing or fact, it is clear that such a definition would fit well into his overall philosophy of mind.”

It may be traced to Aristotle, but that’s not saying much — nearly everything has been traced to him and Plato.

Regardless, there’s simply too much to say about the idea of truth. By Plato and Aristotle, it had changed — as had phusis.

What would you say is the goal of philosophy? — A Christian Philosophy

I don’t think there is a goal, really. But if you’re interested in a more in depth discussion on what philosophy is, I’ll point you to the link below rather than derail your thread.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/8313/what-is-philosophy/p1

In a nutshell, I think philosophy is “universal phenomenological ontology” and is distinguished from general thinking by its questions— the question of all questions grounded in “What is being?”

As I explain in another video, philosophy means "love of wisdom", and wisdom means "conforming our beliefs to reality (i.e. true beliefs) and our behaviour to reality (i.e. right behaviour)". — A Christian Philosophy

I’m not sure this is what the Greeks meant. And in any case, the entire idea of “beliefs conforming to reality” is much more modern than you may realize. The initial conception of truth was a kind of uncovering, de-concealing, or disclosure in the early Greek period — not the correspondence type view we see today of a subject accurately describing an external object. The subject/object, mind/body distinction itself only begins in earnest with Descartes — not the Greeks. So if anything, your definition seems rather anachronistic.

You'll struggle to find a freer system anywhere else — Tzeentch

Since free markets don’t exist, and nearly every country is a state-capitalist one — often called mixed economies — this statement is just meaningless. Might as well say we’re the greatest country on earth, despite some flaws. A nice mythology, but impossible to measure.

That would be communism, which already has been tried and it has failed several times. — Tzeentch

More myth. Neither the Soviet Union nor China are really communist, as even you’ve mentioned— and neither really failed, incidentally.

Friedman-type “free enterprise” systems have been tried, however — and failed very badly indeed.

Clearly, the answer to those flaws it not more government, — Tzeentch

Since the flaws — like the crash of 2008 — was largely due to insane behavior by an industry that was deregulated— Yeah I’d say the answer is more Government. Ditto for monopolies that inevitably arise over and over again.

Funny to see people double down, though. The push for “free markets” results in failure, and the answer is “I guess they weren’t free enough!” Meanwhile during the era of tight banking regs, there were no crashes. But since the government can do no right, it must have been something else. Market fundamentalism 101.

Sorry— not convincing.

Your position doesn't make any sense. On the one hand you reel against the terrible economic freedoms, and how those freedoms are responsible for all the terrible things that befall people in society, and on the other hand you deny such freedoms exist! So what is it going to be? — Tzeentch

What freedoms? The freedom to be a a wage slave or starve to death? That freedom? Or the freedom to choose between a Dodge and a Ford?

No, I don’t say these things don’t exist. Calling it “freedom of choice” is ridiculous, of course— much like your use of “voluntary.” But still — as phenomena, they exist. No one is denying it.

(1) You stated that voluntary association is a key difference between employment and government.
(2) I'm saying that one also has the choice to leave a country if one does not like the laws.
(3) Both are voluntary. No one has a gun to your head. You're free to choose.
— Xtrix

And I've repeatedly argued this type of argument throws all sense of proportion out of the window. The idea we're freer to choose the country we live in than we are to choose our occupation is just silly. — Tzeentch

I never once said that. So I’ll point you to what I said, yet again, and encourage you to read it until you understand it. I’ve been as clear as I can be. It’s interesting to watch this, however— you simply won’t allow yourself to understand it. Pyschologically interesting.

No, when someone says "Work for me or starve to death", I think that's clearly coercion. — Tzeentch

No one says that.

There's a significant difference between an average worker who has plenty of choice regarding his occupation, and someone who is economically completely cornered. — Tzeentch

And tens of millions of people in the US, and hundreds of millions across the globe, are in the latter camp. You and others want to pretend they’re in the former— but that too is a convenient mythology for market fundamentalists.

And it says nothing about the system of wage slavery itself, nor the fundamentally immoral structure of corporations and employer-employee relation. So even if every employee had “plenty of choice,” it would say nothing about the system.

choice of work and choice of nationality the same. — Tzeentch

They’re not the same. I never once said they were. But both can be considered voluntary in your sense. If no one is putting a gun to your head, or even saying “work or starve” (which doesn’t happen), then you’re free to leave your job. Thus it’s a voluntary agreement.

That people may eventually be in a position to change that conditions does not change government's essential nature - violence and coercion. — Tzeentch

And the fact that someone can be in a position to change their jobs does not change capitalism’s essential nature — exploitation and economic means of coercion.

Oh, there's plenty of alternatives. Be a wage slave at Wal Mart, or at Cosco, or at Target, or at McDonalds, or at Burger King, or at an Amazon warehouse. Lots of options. What about the option NOT to be a wage-slave? Or to work at a worker-owned/run enterprise? Those choices simply aren't presented in this system.
— Xtrix

Nonsense. You're free to do all of those things. — Tzeentch

You’re free to go to the moon, too.

The fact that you think people have the option not to work for wages because small businesses exist is laughable. It’s just that easy… to market fundamentalists.

So far this is like corresponding with libertarian cliches.

All of those things are out of reach if one doesn't have any good ideas, initiative or a desire to incur the risk of investment. — Tzeentch

:lol:

Those stupid, lazy people with no drive! If only they took more risk and tried harder— then they too could be a Jeff Bezos.

Good lord.

And I believe here we are getting to the real meat and potatoes of the anti-capitalist idea - that building a business is something that should magically happen to us, without any effort, without any intellectual effort to produce a good idea, without any investments that incur risk. It reeks of entitlement. — Tzeentch

Yeah, because that’s definitely what’s happening. Stupid, lazy, entitled people with no drive looking for handouts.

Cue Jeffrey Lebowski.

If you want to have stability, no responsibility and no risk, you're free to be a "wage slave", whatever that means. And even in those situations a person can grow if they want to, but if they work resentfully, believing they deserve more without actually working for it, believing that because they work a simple job, there are no skills for them to develop there, it won't get them very far and in this case their supposed poverty is self-imposed. — Tzeentch

Stupid, lazy, entailed, and with self-imposed poverty.

In other words: no one to blame but themselves. Got it. Thanks for not concealing your pathological worldview — appreciated. I’m happy to have helped smoke it out.

I want workers to control their workplaces and to make decisions together. Bezos doesn't run the Amazon warehouses, the workers do. The Waltons don't run any WalMart store you go to, the workers do.
— Xtrix

See my point about the costs incurred by business-owners. — Tzeentch

:lol:

:up:

I’ll skip the rest. Not interested in cliches I’ve heard a thousand times before. Be well.

We don’t expect rationality from religious belief or entertainment, yet neoliberalism and financial engineering have been far more directly responsible for keeping the global self-delusion of limitless growth going. — apokrisis

I agree wholeheartedly. Again, here I would include this as “religion,” using a fairly broad definition. In the OP I mentioned Christianity especially, but only in response to the problem. The problem itself is also caused in large part to religion of the kind you mention: neoliberal doctrine, capitalism writ large, etc.

I’m saying the problem is deep rooted as modern identity has been constructed around the “limitless growth” that fossil fuels promised. Our political and social economy is premised on it. — apokrisis

:up:

Thus to fix the problem, it is not just about providing better information. It is about redesigning the very psychology at work in “tackling the threat”. — apokrisis

Well this is what I would lump in with religion, in a sense. The beliefs and values we internalize — and that become hardened into unconscious dogma — I would say is a major problem, yes. Whether that belief is the view of human beings as creatures with needs to satisfy, or in endless economic growth, or in an afterlife, etc. — the issue really is a psychological one. So capitalism, Christianity, scientism, and so on, all play a role.

Does anyone really fear death given its inevitability and the fact sleep comes for us every night? — apokrisis

I think so, yes. Mostly it’s not thought about at all, but when it is I think it’s a human universal.

Still blaming illusions, religion, witchcraft, irrationality, for the problems of science and technology? No, it is not the insane who are destroying the world, but the reasonable, pragmatic, scientific, progressives. — unenlightened

I’m not exclusively blaming them, but I do highlight religion and media in this thread, as I feel the influence of the combination is generally overlooked— at least by me.

But I’d take issue with your characterization. The problems aren’t exclusively scientific or technological either. Who’s guiding this science and technology? Who packages it and monetizes it? Even the scientists themselves aren’t devoid of beliefs, being humans themselves. I did mention scientism and belief in infinite growth earlier — all those are factors too.

Lastly, I’m not claiming the insane are destroying the world. In fact I don’t really touch on the causes of nuclear weapons or climate change— I simply take it as a given that they are problems, and want to focus (in this thread) on our collective response to these problems. So I would ultimately agree— those who have degraded the world aren’t insane.

Without this will to survive that comes out as a feeling of invincibility, the species would not face challenges that it otherwise does. — god must be atheist

True. But we’re also capable of solving complex problems and revolting at intolerable conditions. If an asteroid was headed towards earth, would we be so cavalier? Probably not.

Again, it could just be how human beings are. But imbibing messages mentioned above has an impact.

Something to what you say from an etymology and historical perspective, but lets not consider etymology and tradition to be the final authority on what a term means. — Yohan

True, but in this case I think it’s relevant only because “original” was used. I think there’s a lot more to be said about it. As many know, I like what Heidegger says about the Greeks — especially regarding aletheia (“truth”), so this particularly stands out to me.

“If we face this problem head on, if we listen to our best scientists, and act decisively and passionately— I still don’t see any way we can survive.”

:lol:

If the path of least resistance is to go on pretending to deal with an existential threat then that's the path we'll most likely take right past the point which it's too late to do anything about it. — Baden

That’s my fear, yes. Dancing off the cliff. I think all the greenwashing and talk about “net zero” falls under the “pretending” label. As does the IRA, really.

The disaster movie and the disastrous headlines psychologically relieve us of the will to act. — Baden

I’m glad someone mentioned disaster movies. Armageddon — the one where Bruce Willis saves the earth from an asteroid — is a good example: heroes or superheroes of some kind will rescue us. It’s magical thinking; scientist as magician/wizard. There was another one — Deep Impact — where another asteroid was going to destroy earth and somehow the protagonist survives by riding up a hill with a motorcycle so that the water didn’t get to him.

This is exactly what I mean. It’s all done with a kind of mock realism, a semi-plausible story, to suck you in. But always with a happy ending. Don’t Look Up is the only one that doesn’t do that. I consider it the Dr. Strangelove of climate change.

We are not going to go out on the street protesting until our crops are dying and we don't have enough to eat because only then social reproduction is really threatened. — Baden

And by that point it’s too late. I feel we’re all noticing these summers are getting awful already— and it affects polling on climate change. But the rate is so slow that at the pace we’re going, by the time there’s real demand for action (when enough people are inconvenienced or killed every summer, or prices on insurance and food becomes too high or water supply gets too low), it’ll already be far too late. I feel it may be too late now, in fact. May have been too late 15 years ago.

Aren’t you conflating two different attitudes?
One is techno-optimism. We are self making gods. Our fate is in our own hands.
The other is old fashioned fatalism. We are the playthings of the gods. It is what it is. — apokrisis

Yes, that’s close enough to what I mean. I wouldn’t myself use “fatalism,” but I see your point. I like that you mentioned technology— that our science and technological advances will save the day. That’s a big one I didn’t specifically mention.

So the problem isn’t “media” in the sense of public misinformation. The problem is much deeper. It is in the mind of the global social organism receiving any message. Our collective identity is predicated on the exponential growth that became a thing with the industrial revolution. — apokrisis

Hmm. I’m a little unclear as to what you mean here. If you’re saying the real problem is the idea of constant economic growth and expansion, I think that’s a big part of our problem — especially in destroying the environment.

My point in the OP is that we have failed to appropriately react to the unprecedented threats we face, and that one explanation is that of simple hubris — we believe we can’t die. I think religion and media contribute to this hubris.

Philosophy (original meaning) is the search for truth — A Christian Philosophy

Already on the wrong track. Philosophy’s “original” meaning is hardly the search for truth — and certainly not the kind of truth we talk about these days. This seems to me to be imposing a scientific/Cartesian worldview on the Greeks. One that emphasizes epistemology. So the rest of the post is founded upon what I see as a false premise.

US demographics is far better, thanks to immigration. — ssu

It's 1.9 in the US; replacement rate is 2.1. China is 1.15, and one of the lowest. They're both too low.

And you think in those profit and non-profit organizations the managers didn't listen one iota at their workforce about anything? Nope, zero. They had their information from God (or something) and preached it to the organization without wanting to hear any feedback? — ssu

Considering I was a manager, I can tell you that the answer is easy: of course they listen to their workers. Sometimes they even become friends. I've worked with people I like and don't like. Staff meetings were frequent.

This is all nice to talk about, I suppose. Unfortunately it has nothing to do with what I was talking about before.

So I'm not sure just how great powerhouse China actually is. Let's look after a couple of years. — ssu

Completely misses the point, but sure. Let's look at the US in a few years, for that matter. The replacement rate is low here as well.

Having lived in several cities and towns in the US - That’s because you don’t know how a corporation functions.
— Xtrix
I've worked in corporations, but have you? — ssu

Yes. Profit and non-profit. Completely beside the point, but there's an answer.

Really? Compared to what? North Korea? :roll: — ssu

In many ways compared to the US. I’m well aware they’re the current bogeyman. There’s plenty I don’t like about China. But you mentioned “horrible results” regarding private property. And China just isn’t that horrible. In fact economically it’s a powerhouse, and millions have been raised out of poverty.

Even if they (the CCP) say there still Marxist-Leninists, they do have private property (especially after Mao). With so many billionaires and real estate bubble bursting, I don't think the country qualifies for a true communist state. — ssu

Predictably. Just jump right into what you meant to say initially: anything horrible = communism, anything good = capitalism. :yawn:

Incidentally, I don’t think it’s communist either — for very different reasons. Not because some private property exists at the margins.

In reality, the "community", the people likely won't give a shit about a corporation if they don't work there. Likely the only reason they would want to complain about something. — ssu

Yeah, you just don’t know what you’re talking about. Having lived in several cities and towns in the US, I’ll just leave you to your “reality.”

Neither the workers, nor the community, nor the customers, have any say whatsoever in the major decisions of the company I have already outlined. Zero.
— Xtrix
Zero? That is simply not true. — ssu

That’s because you don’t know how a corporation functions. I can’t help that.

They have zero say.

And basically, if you run down your company for short term profits, guess what, sooner or later the company is a former company. — ssu

And that’s happened more and more.

No I don't think so. Don't believe the hype. Individual-1 is dead man trundling. Desantis is loathsome even in Florida. — 180 Proof

Er, I hope you're right, but I'll believe it when I see it. I think the Republicans have gerrymandered their way to control of the House no matter what. Polling doesn't look great on that front either. Slightly better in the Senate.

Anyway, as for 2022, long before Moscow Mitch conceded this week (or last) that the Dems are likely to pick up seats in the Senate, I'd been saying at least since SCOTUS wantonly shat on Reproductive Freedom that the Dems chances of holding the House & Senate were good. Recall the anti-abortion referendum got crushed in ruby red Kansas just a couple of weeks ago! (Iirc, about a third of rural Republican – women – no doubt voted against the GOP measure!)

And since the public J6 Hearings have significantly moved polls on Independents away from the GOP this summer and extreme Trumpstains are on so many ballots around making otherwise safe seats competitive, Dems midterm chances have only improved. The latest news about tr45h being investigated for Espionage, etc can only turn off / frighten the same Independent and moderate Republican suburban voters who bailed on the GOP in 2018 and 2020. And y'know there's at least a footlocker's worth of boots to drop before November, don't ya? :up: — 180 Proof

Like I said, I hope so. But I'm not counting on it, given the historical trends. This could be very different, however -- if the turnout is high. The last two elections they've been high, and I have no idea if they will be for this one or not. Maybe young people will get out to vote, maybe not. Older people generally vote, and I think they have to be liking the bill regarding prescription drugs.

There's also Biden's approval numbers, which aren't great.

Overall, I'm not as optimistic but there certainly are some positive trends. Fingers crossed.

I saw that too.

Situational morality is better than none, I suppose, but I see it for what it is, and I am minimally moved.

However, her loss does crystallize something for us that many had already known: that the bar to clear in the modern Republican Party isn’t being sufficiently conservative but rather being sufficiently obedient to Donald Trump and his quest to deny and destroy democracy.

We must stop thinking it hyperbolic to say that the Republican Party itself is now a threat to our democracy. I understand the queasiness about labeling many of our fellow Americans in that way. I understand that it sounds extreme and overreaching.

But how else are we to describe what we are seeing?

I think people are beginning to realize that Chomsky's statement a few years ago, that "The Republican party is the most dangerous organization" in human history, although criticized at the time, is absolutely true. Not just for their being vehemently anti-democracy, but because of their rush to destroy the prospects of human life on earth, through their unanimous denial of global warming and promotion of fossil fuel use.

And yet there's a good chance they take over congress in a couple months and obtain the presidency in 2024. Pretty scary.

Furthermore, that "moral" world without private property has been tried again and again, with absolutely horrible results. — ssu

China isn't so horrible.

And now the idea of a stakeholder is widely accepted. — ssu

As lip service. Until corporations are governed democratically, it's window dressing.

And you have here, just to give an example, Nordic corporatism — ssu

Where's "here"? I'm talking mostly about the US, not Scandinavia. But I think it's true, there's a lot to learn from the Nordic model.

The public has no input on the decisions of the corporation.
— Xtrix
And just what ought to be the input of people who don't have a clue what the corporation does? — ssu

The corporation operates in a community, and to the extent that they employ people in that community, have buildings in that community, effect traffic in that community, and have environmental effects in that community, I think the community has more than a clue indeed, and should have some input. There should be community outreach and meetings with the local governments. Some of this takes place, but mostly it doesn't.

Workers have no input either.
— Xtrix
:roll:

Have you had a job? I would disagree here. — ssu

Then you're just ignoring what I'm writing -- and it's getting tiresome. Re-read what I wrote. If you want to have a conversation with an imaginary interlocutor you've concocted out of thin air, you're free to.

Neither the workers, nor the community, nor the customers, have any say whatsoever in the major decisions of the company I have already outlined. Zero. If you don't understand this point, you have no clue how corporations are run.

I distinguish between the use of physical force - violence, coercion, etc., and other kinds of power.

To me, while both can be problematic, physical force is more clearly visible and definable, and easier to argue against on the basis of fundamental human rights.

So illegitimate use of physical force I can agree with. Illegitimate use of any kind of force (which is essentially as fuzzy as the word 'power'), I cannot. — Tzeentch

You're missing the point. My point is the determine whether the use of force/power/authority/control/domination is legitimate or not. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. Mostly it isn't -- it's a hard test to pass -- but it's possible.

I don't think the use of physical force is ever just. Justice implies an element of goodness - I don't believe violence possesses any such quality. Though, sometimes its use may be excused (self-defense) or begrudgingly accepted as an evil necessary to prevent worse (government). — Tzeentch

I didn't say just, I said legitimate. So take "just" out of it if you prefer, it really doesn't matter to the point I was making.

Not exactly. He discusses the relationship between the 19th century capitalists and the ordinary worker, and claims that it was not strictly exploitative, but to a large degree mutually beneficial. — Tzeentch

Which is mostly nonsense. But I skipped this one because I don't want to have a length debate on Friedman here. I intend to start a thread about the man in the future.

Of course there is a free market. — Tzeentch

Not free in the least. Created, maintained, regulated, and intervened in on every level by the state. The idea of a free market is a fantasy.

What it really means is: "free markets" for working people, massive state intervention for corporate America. We have a state-capitalist system, sometimes described as a bailout economy. It's rigged for the wealthy and monopolies. Nothing free about it.

It's exactly the low level of regulations of and interference with the market one finds in a free capitalist society that provides people with a certain degree of choice — Tzeentch

Sorry, but this is like listening to a fairytale. So much has been written about it that I don't know where to begin other than to refer you to Ha-Joon Chang, David Harvey, Lynn Stout, William Lazonick, Chomsky, Richard Wolff, Gary Gerstle, etc. -- just off the top of my head.

The state subsidizing and bailing out industries, from defense contracts and Big Ag to publicly funded research/development to tax breaks, the state is there constantly. They lobby the state for what they want, and they know they need a very large corporate nanny state to survive. Free markets serve as a great cover for everyone else, as they run to pick up their government bailouts. A nice story.

The "certain degree of choice" is also an illusion. The "choice" between a Ford and a Chevy, or a thousand brands of toothpaste. That's supposed to demonstrate the wonders of the "free market" -- all the wonderful choices we have. Little is said about the fact that what people actually need, and want, is public transportation for example. Reminds me of the "choice" between democrats and republicans -- that's supposed to demonstrate we have a robust debate and real choice. If you buy into all of that, I don't know what else to do for you. It's really a joke when you look at it a little more.

Obviously when something incurs a sufficiently high cost, it can no longer said to be voluntary. I've already said that for someone living in dire poverty, choice of employment may not be voluntary.
However, in what world is an impoverished worker freer to leave the country than he is to find a different employer? Again, you're throwing all sense of proportion out of the window, and that will make reasonable debate impossible. — Tzeentch

No, you're just not listening. I'll say it once more, and number the points for clarity:

(1) You stated that voluntary association is a key difference between employment and government.
(2) I'm saying that one also has the choice to leave a country if one does not like the laws.
(3) Both are voluntary. No one has a gun to your head. You're free to choose.

Now, you say when there's "sufficiently high cost," it's no longer voluntary -- even without the threat of violence. Yes, that's my point, and this situation is much more prevalent in the case of employment than you let on.

I haven't once said that a worker is "freer" to leave the country than find a different employer. Not once. So I'd argue making things up is also an impediment to "reasonable debate."

The vast majority of people have plenty to choose from when it comes to employment, even unskilled workers. — Tzeentch

And you have plenty of countries to choose from if you don't like this one. Is that an argument?

To be absolutely clear: if you understand the absurdity of my claim, you should understand the absurdity of yours. "Plenty to choose from" is irrelevant. If slaves had plenty of masters to choose from, is that a point in favor of the system of slavery?

I don't believe there are so many people who can truly be said to have no alternatives whatsoever, even by reasonable standards, but to the degree that there are I can agree that they are in a precarious situation and their relationship with their employer isn't entirely voluntary. — Tzeentch

Oh, there's plenty of alternatives. Be a wage slave at Wal Mart, or at Cosco, or at Target, or at McDonalds, or at Burger King, or at an Amazon warehouse. Lots of options. What about the option NOT to be a wage-slave? Or to work at a worker-owned/run enterprise? Those choices simply aren't presented in this system. You have this master or that master -- or starvation. That's the choice. (I'm waiting for the "start you own business" claim here.)

Sure, you can refuse to work...and I guess that's an argument. In that case, you're also free to leave the country if you don't like the rules. In place of this kind of thinking, I encourage people to change the rules -- whether in the workplace or in society.

For all the talk about being "free to choose," free to leave your job, etc., there's very little discussion about why they have to leave in the first place. How about simply improving conditions? We wouldn't say that taking kids away from abusive families is the only solution to child abuse -- we want to end child abuse.

And I want to end private tyrannies and wage slavery. I want workers to control their workplaces and to make decisions together. Bezos doesn't run the Amazon warehouses, the workers do. The Waltons don't run any WalMart store you go to, the workers do. At the bare minimum, I at least want to see workers receive a livable wage.

But you simply refuse to acknowledge the fact that you're welcome to leave the country -- no one is forcing you to stay. So by staying and living in this country -- just as staying and working in a corporation -- you consent to the rules. Don't like the rules and conditions? Sorry, but you can leave.
— Xtrix

You don't apply this standard yourself, so why would I take this argument serious? — Tzeentch

I absolutely apply it to myself. I'm in this country voluntarily. I'm simply demonstrating how little that actually means, outside academic discussion.

By the time one even has the chance to leave a country [leave a job], usually several decades into one's life, one has become firmly rooted in that society [job]. Not to mention it would require a considerable investment of time and money. — Tzeentch

I fixed your statement. I'm glad you see the point. Having a job is about as voluntary as leaving the country. True, you can argue that it's technically voluntary -- and that's true -- but it overlooks so much as to be callous.

And ultimately, this isn't even a choice you can make on your own. You need the approval of both your country of birth and your country of destination, in other words, you need to conform to laws, and laws are enforced through violence, so you're not 'free to leave' at all. — Tzeentch

You're still free to leave. No one said it was easy, and no one is coercing you through threat of violence to stay. You complain that it's difficult; yeah, so's leaving a job. In every case? No. Plenty of people can leave their jobs easily. Plenty of people can leave the country easily too.

This attempt at making a change in employment the same as migrating is just silly. — Tzeentch

I never once said it was the "same." They're very different things. But according to your standards, they're both VOLUNTARY: No one is forcing you to stay. I'll keep repeating this until you decide to read it, I guess.

You're comparing apples to oranges. When one lives in absolute poverty and those are your only options I might agree that employment isn't voluntary, but there's not a modern country in the world in which those are your only options, and the free market is largely to thank for that. — Tzeentch

There is no free market. Another myth.

Those are not your only options. Yeah, tell that to the millions of people in near poverty in the United States, living paycheck to paycheck. You may want to gloss over it, but that's your own deal.

In any case, it matters not: you're still free to leave the country just as someone is "free" to leave their job if they don't like the conditions. As long as we're being unsympathetic, let's be consistent.

There’s much more freedom with the government and the law of the land. Don’t like the laws? Work to change them, or leave. No one is forcing you to stay in the country.
— Xtrix

"Much more freedom" how? — Tzeentch

You can leave; you have no choice about what language you acquire.

How is it easier to migrate to another country, which essentially implies one also needs to find different employment, than it is to find only different employement? — Tzeentch

I was referring to the acquisition of language.

But regarding the ease of leaving the country -- sometimes it's easier, sometimes it isn't. Depends on the situation. Mostly it's going to be a hassle, I'm sure. But it's still an option. Thus, living in the country is voluntary. As voluntary as staying in a job.

And the idea it is easier to change the law than it is to change employer is equally something I cannot imagine you genuinely believe. — Tzeentch

I didn't say that. It can be just as easy, or at times harder, to leave the country than it is to leave an employer. Laws are hard to change; corporate bylaws are also hard to change.

What you're doing is departing from all sense of proportion — Tzeentch

No, I'm not. You -- and every other advocate of "free markets," small government, etc. -- always like to raise the idea that jobs are voluntary, and make voluntary agreements a crucial component of what's considered an ideal, or close to ideal, condition. You point to contracts with employers as voluntary, and that no such contract exists with the government. But you simply refuse to acknowledge the fact that you're welcome to leave the country -- no one is forcing you to stay. So by staying and living in this country -- just as staying and working in a corporation -- you consent to the rules. Don't like the rules and conditions? Sorry, but you can leave.

If we're going to apply simplistic notions of "voluntary" behavior to work, there's no reason not to apply it to governments.

Also, how come you ignored about 75% of my earlier post? — Tzeentch

Which? Point me to the relevant passages -- perhaps I did miss something. I scrolled through a few but didn't notice.

As many of the owners today are institutional investors and mutual funds, the role of the employed managerial class is the most important. — ssu

Asset managers like BlackRock and Vanguard own decent amounts of shares in many corporations. They’re major shareholders, but not controlling shareholders.

Still, I do agree that the CEO and a handful of other executives is generally more important. They themselves are hired and answer to the board. Sometimes the chairman is also the CEO, sometimes he or she is also the controlling shareholder — or all three in some cases (Zuckerberg, for example). Makes no real difference to my argument.

But just where do you draw the line for accountability? The law defines it. If the management does poor business decisions and the corporation goes bankrupt, that in itself isn't a crime. If the technology changes and the corporation is unable to cope with the change, is that a crime? It's poor management, lousy work. But not something that breaks the law. — ssu

The laws and regulations have changed a great deal over time. In some eras you have better laws, more tightly regulated business; in others, looser or non-existent regulations— or outright regulatory capture. All of that is worth discussing.

But none of it is relevant to my point. Even in the golden age of capitalism, in the 50s, when corporations were better regulated and better run — before the neoliberal assault — they were still run undemocratically. Still just a handful of people — owners, managers, etc., maybe 20-50 people, making all the important decisions. That is what I’m arguing against.

I’m not talking about accountability in that sense. Accountability is everywhere— businesses are accountable to law and to shareholders; they have, in the past, taken some responsibility towards their employees and communities and customers. But, again, that’s a red herring.

The public has no input on the decisions of the corporation. Workers have no input either. None are allowed a seat at the table. Decisions on what to do with the profits that all employees helped generate are ultimately in the hands of a oligarchy. They are not accountable to their workers, or the community, or the government. There is no vote, no election, no forum for public feedback, nothing.

Your choice to work anyone is, technically, voluntary. You can quit. — Xtrix

Your use of the word "technically" implies you yourself see the issue with that statement. — Tzeentch

You’re right: the choice to feed your family or starve isn’t really much of a choice at all. So in reality, most jobs aren’t voluntary. People are forced to work them by pressures beyond physical force.

In the case of government there was never even any agreement. — Tzeentch

In the case of language there was never agreement either. You acquire what’s around you.

There’s much more freedom with the government and the law of the land. Don’t like the laws? Work to change them, or leave. No one is forcing you to stay in the country.

You cannot in one sentence reel against capitalist exploitation of workers, implying their labour is performed involuntary, and in the next imply that switching jobs is the same as switching countries. — Tzeentch

Staying at a job is as “voluntary” as staying in the country, yes. No one is physically forcing you to do either. Leaving either could involve a lot of work and hardship, true— but that’s life. Here I’m just applying conservative/libertarian logic. Personally I think it’s complete nonsense, but what’s good for one is good for another.

If you want to use such an uncompromising standard in discussing human affairs then I'm afraid we'll have to start the conversation over, and we'll see where that uncompromising standard brings us. — Tzeentch

What uncompromising standard?

You wish to differentiate between voluntary and involuntary activities, aligning the former with job agreements and the latter with laws/government. I’m simply pointing out the silliness and simplicity of this interpretation.

Better to stick with what Friedman says about corporations versus government regarding money. This “voluntary” stuff holds no water.

In the case of work you do have a say. Isn't your choice to sign a contract with an employer completely voluntary? — Tzeentch

Your choice to work anyone is, technically, voluntary. You can quit.

Your choice to stay in the country is, technically, voluntary. You can leave.

My 'social contract' with my government has no such voluntary elements. In fact, they never had me sign anything! — Tzeentch

Most jobs don’t have contracts. My job is at-will, for example. Never signed anything. So what? It’s still an agreement. Remaining in a country, same thing. If you don’t like it, you can try changing it or you can leave. No one is forcing you to be here. No one has a gun to your head. It may be a pain in the ass to leave, sure. It’s often a pain in the ass to quit a job, too.

A co-opt or a stock company are far closer to each other than you think. — ssu

They can be the same, in fact. A co-op can issue stock. What’s your point?

They have to abide to the existing laws. You cannot deny that. — ssu

Yes— and they wouldn’t exist without the law. They also use their power to shape those laws.

I’m not sure what you’re arguing anymore. The Fortune 500 companies I’m talking about are run undemocratically. They’re run by the board of directors and the CEO. The board is chosen by major shareholders (the “owners”). These people — a small group of 20-50 — make all the major decisions. That’s the structure of most corporations, and it is NOT democracy — your talk of “accountability” notwithstanding.

Look, there is either private ownership or public ownership. A cooperative, an association and even a non-profit organization are private. If you aren't a member of them, you have no democratic say their actions. — ssu

There are private-public partnerships. The non-profit I worked for was a mix.

Regardless, what’s the relevance of this remark? I’m talking about the internal structure of corporations: corporate governance.

A worker-owned enterprise is not Government-owned. I wanted to emphasize that point. Workers owning and running their workplace is my preference.

Yeah, that's called being an entrepreneur. — ssu

It has nothing to do with entrepreneurship.

Just what are you talking about here with "democracy". — ssu

Rule by the demos.

When you understand the above, then think just what is the question that you have mind when you argue that there isn't "democracy" in a business enterprise. — ssu

See above. I’m talking about corporate governance. If you’re in favor of an undemocratic, top-down way of organizing companies, that’s your issue. I’m in favor of democratizing the workplace. Co-ops are often a good example. Having the ability to fire your boss; deciding the appropriate levels of wages; deciding together what to produce, where and how much; and crucially, deciding what to do with the profits of the enterprise. There’s no reason business can’t be run this way, and in fact have been. It’s stifled in this current system we live in, at least in the US, but it’s possible. That’s what I want to see more of.

The norm, which I outlined above, is destroying businesses — and the planet — and is a form of tyranny. I’m not in favor of that.

Ownership creates that accountability. — ssu

No it doesn’t. Unless you’re talking about some co-ops - but that’s not what I’m talking about.

Corporations have zero accountability to the public. They’re run undemocratically. Ownership doesn’t change that. The workers could own the enterprise and run it democratically, if they so desire.

government ownership — ssu

I’m not talking about government ownership either, although it’s preferable to private tyranny - at least the public has some input.

I believe the best mode for humans to coexist is voluntary. That's how I and most people (including most business!) conduct themselves every day. I don't desire to live in a society in which voluntariness cannot be achieved, but alas I have little choice. — Tzeentch

But you do: you can leave the country. Just like you can quit your job— totally voluntary. Or, you can try to change the institution. In the former case, you have the power to vote, to protest, to petition, to speak with your elected leader (in the case of local and state reps, this is fairly easy -- obviously not as easy with federal representatives), run for office yourself, etc. In the latter case, there are no democratic means -- you have no vote in the board of directors or who your boss or CEO is. You can advocate for yourself or form a union, but you can be fired for nearly any reason, at any time. They tell you what to wear, what's being produced, what time to show up, when to eat lunch, etc. -- and then, after you and all of your fellow coworkers have run the machines or done the paperwork, generating loads of profit, they will decide what to do with it. You have no say in it.

Voluntary cooperation is of course desirable. That doesn't negate the need for rules.

That is not feasible for a modern state. — Tzeentch

It's not really feasible anywhere, really. It's good to have rules we can all agree on, but there's bound to be instances where not everyone does.

Anyway -- long term, I'm in favor of the dissolution of the state. So I'm not here to defend it. There's plenty to criticize.

Our principle shouldn't simply be against the use of force, it should be against illegitimate power.
— Xtrix

I disagree.

Violence, threat of violence and coercion are all clearly definable along the lines of physical force. — Tzeentch

Just replace "power" with "illegitimate use of force," then. Same thing. If "power" is too abstract for you.

Illegitimate power is essentially undefinable, so I could never agree to trusting governments, as flawed and corrupt an instrument as they are, with defining such a term. — Tzeentch

Who's asking you to? I said OUR principle should be looking for structures of power, dominance, control, etc., and checking for their legitimacy. I think use of force, for example, can be justified at times.

I might agree with you that the power of multinational organisations may need to be curbed. I would do so specifically on the grounds that their power is now seeping into governments - an instrument of force - putting an instrument of force in the hands of private individuals. — Tzeentch

Then we are in agreement, because that's exactly what's happened.

To point at the power of multinationals and conclude therefore private ownership (capitalism) needs to go (I'm not sure if you're arguing that, but I certainly have seen it suggested on this forum) is several bridges too far for me. — Tzeentch

I don't think we have to go that far. I would much prefer workers own and run where they work, and do so democratically. You can have private ownership and not have the institution or organization or corporation be run as an oligarchy. Just as you can have a political system not run as a plutocracy.

Friedman certainly never spared the robber barons, — Tzeentch

Really? He repeatedly claims they're a myth.

highly aggressive, I'm thinking Xtrix — Yohan

I do lose my temper occasionally; I don’t deny it. There are some topics and some people I find particularly difficult. I don’t recall any instance of you being one of them, so I wonder what you’re referring to.

In terms of being a moderator, I try to be fair and discuss almost every move I make with other, more experienced, moderators. Even if I wanted to abuse the power, I couldn't do it.

He was pretty maniacal before Streetlight left. Streetlight was a bad influence. — Tate

I never got along with Streetlight, and don’t consider him an influence in the least. Nor has my style changed since he’s left.

If you’re going to make things up, try harder.

Nah, he's like Streetlight in that he loses his mind if you disagree with him. — Tate

Nah, you’re just still upset that I (and everyone else) called you out on an irrelevant and snarky post you made last month that you then cried about for a week, playing the victim of injustice. So your input here is warped and, quite frankly, worthless and easily ignored.

He is authoritarian, he is patronizing, he acts in bad faith. And now that he's a moderator, we can't do anything against that. — baker

See above. Another person whose feedback I will readily ignore. You are one of the most posturing, condescending posters on this forum, and have been for years. You don’t listen to a word almost anyone says — you care solely about contradicting. Take a long look at your comments and it’s very easy to demonstrate. If you’re thinking of leaving because of me, I consider that a merit.

He tells people to kill themselves. And he's getting away with it. — baker

I've never told anyone to kill themselves. I was very clear about that in the thread you're quoting. Within the context of believing life is not worth living, is nothing but pain, etc., it's a legitimate question -- why not kill yourself? In fact it's a question that the psychiatrist Viktor Frankl would often ask his patients.

This is a good example of why your leaving this forum would be a deliverance, in my view.



I beg your pardon, and I know this is playing right into the criticisms being leveled at me, but given my (mostly recent) history with the three of you, your opinions about my moderator status is worth about as much as Trump's opinions about the FBI raid.

Drag NOS in here too, while you're at it. More fair and balanced criticism, I'm sure.


Lastly, for context:

as I long for death,
— Darkneos

Then why are you still around? I don’t mean this to be callous — and I’m not encouraging suicide — but genuinely curious. If you long for nothingness, why keep going? — Xtrix

at its essence government is predicated on violence and coercion — Tzeentch

it is a deeply flawed method of organizing human coexistence — Tzeentch

Any system of organizing society is based on rules, which are useless without enforcement of those rules. If you murder, which is against the rules in most societies throughout history, you suffer the consequences as determined by that society.

Our principle shouldn't simply be against the use of force, it should be against illegitimate power. We should all come down much harder on private power, especially in the hands of the few owners of multinational corporations (which, incidentally, own the government), rather than the government. Those in government are elected leaders, and so are somewhat accountable to their constituents -- the voters. It's weak, but it's still there. Private power has no such accountability. Corporations are run undemocratically.

Human beings are fundamentally social creatures. Just look at families. Care for others, concern for peoples needs, friendship, kinship, community involvement, etc., are just as much a part of human nature as tendencies of violence, hatred, and competition. For all the libertarian talk about the failure of government, what's conspicuously missing is a critique of private power -- of plutocracy, for example. Or of corporate governance. I think because, ultimately, they're in favor of private power and anti-democracy.

Here I agree with Chomsky:

So here, the term 'libertarian' means the opposite of what it always meant in history. 'Libertarian' throughout European history meant 'socialist-anarchist.' The worker's movement--the socialist movement--sort of broke into 2 branches, one statist, one anti-statist. The statist branch led to Bolshevism and Lenin and Trotsky and so on; the anti-statist branch, which included left-Marxists like Rosa Luxumberg, kind of merged with a big strain of anarchism into what was called 'libertarian socialism.' So 'libertarian' in Europe always meant 'socialist.' Here, it means ultra-Ayn Rand or Cato Institute or something like that. But that's a special US usage...

It's easy to talk in generalities of states and power and endlessly repeat phrases like "monopoly of violence" or "taxation is theft," but that's not what's interesting to me. What's interesting is where this general view, and the basic principles comprising this view, lead people in terms of real policies and real issues. If they lead, say, to voting for someone like Donald Trump, or being consistently opposed to climate action, or the defense of racism and xenophobia, or to successful programs like social security, etc., then I think that tells you a lot. It tells me, anyway, that despite the perhaps well-intended clinging to "libertarian" principles, the application in the real world is an absolute disaster. (Ironically, this is exactly the critique leveled at socialism.)

Financial regulation of the financial sector was done after the '29 crash and usually referred to laws like the Banking act of 1933 (the Glass-Steagal act). Bretton Woods refers to a currency system where the dollar was pegged to gold and other currencies to the dollar and was done after WW2. — ssu

Bretton Woods was intentional in scope, and the financial industry is global. But yes, perhaps emphasizing Glass-Steagal is better. Although it’s claimed that 1999 was the year of its repeal, it was essentially destroyed long before that.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/amazon-workers-file-to-hold-union-election-in-upstate-new-york-11660687817?mod=mhp

Another Amazon facility in upstate NY looking to unionize.

Always like to post some good news…

Listen to the Trump apologists coming out against law and order, law enforcement, etc., after promoting it for years.

Outcries about George Floyd protests. They race to defend the Capitol rioters. Outage about “defund the police,” now calling to defund the FBI. Also instigating violence and fantasizing about civil war.

Empty people with no principles whatsoever. Not even the self awareness enough to recognize the extreme hypocrisy. As pathetic as ever.

Won't he die someday? — 180 Proof

“The good die young…but pricks live forever!”

Prediction:

Nothing will happen to Trump.

Wrong. Please know the reality. — ssu

Ah, I see where the problem was. Looking at the chart, “US investors” are by far the biggest owners of debt— but they’re not a single entity. Social security is also counted as a single entity; I had assumed all governmental purchases (mutual and retirement funds, etc.)

Fair enough— so the Fed, as a single entity, owns more debt than any individual governmental institution or individual country. Still, doesn’t change the point.

Not in the quantity now they would have had to. The simple fact is that the Federal Reserve was the largest buyer of this huge increase in debt until the start of this year. — ssu

Well, individually yes. But look at your chart — individual investors and foreign holders bought more.

Anyway — I’d let go of monetarism. It simply doesn’t explain inflation, except at the margins. At least in this case. It’s not without some truth, but I don’t see how one can look at war and COVID and conclude that the main driver is monetary policy — other than attachment to the theory, dogmatism, or a desire for neat and simple answers. Ultimately it’s a cover for neoliberalism and austerity, as we’re seeing right now. And the working class will be the ones you pay, as usual. All under the name of liberty.

Really? Tell me just what single owner is bigger? — ssu

Social security. By a great deal, I believe.

You seem to think the Fed prints money and that’s what the Congress uses to send checks.
— Xtrix
Actually, yes. — ssu

But like I said, this is pretty misleading. In fact the Fed has only a fraction of the debt, and mostly buys bonds from financial institutions — like banks — and not directly from the treasury.

Last year (2021) the US federal government collected $4.05 trillion in revenue. It spent the government spent $6.82 trillion. Hence the federal government spent $2.77 trillion more than it collected, resulting in a deficit and new debt.

Who do you think bought that new debt? Who suddenly had a lot more US treasury securities? Think. — ssu

Lots of people and institutions buy the debt, in fact. Banks buy trillions in bonds. They also issue their own bonds (corporate bonds). The Fed can buy both from the banks (and individuals) on the open market, like everyone else. The only difference is that the Fed can create (“print”) money. That’s what they’ve done.

It’s more accurate to say that the Fed owns the debt of banks and corporations. They’re given money in exchange for those bonds— money that’s created out of thin air.

But the Fed doesn’t directly buy the deficit. That’s nonsense. Nor do they indirectly buy most of it. Rather, they indirectly buy SOME of it, along with corporate debt. They do this as part of monetary policy.

I’m sorry that it’s more complicated than you want to believe. You might as well accuse the SSA of being “hand in hand” with Congress. Kind of absurd, in my view, but not completely false.

The Federal Reserve is the largest single owner of US treasuries. — ssu

No, it isn’t.

A "thin connection" counted in trillions. :snicker: — ssu

Yes, so by your standard theres a connection between fiscal policy and China, mutual funds, and social security. Because they all buy bonds. For that matter, I’M connected to fiscal policy, since I own bonds. Fine. So what? Is this serious?

And what is so hard for you in understanding a sentence like above: " the U.S. Federal Reserve has significantly ramped up its holdings of Treasury securities as part of a broader effort to counteract the economic impact of the public health emergency." — ssu

What about it? When have I once denied that the Fed purchases treasuries? That’s a tool of the Fed.

You seem to think the Fed prints money and that’s what the Congress uses to send checks. Well, for the fraction of the debt that’s bought by the Fed in the open market, that’s true. And?

What makes you so confident about that? What mechanisms do you believe were at play that caused this success? Why were these successful policies later abandoned?

"Figure it out yourself" won't do. — Tzeentch

There’s plenty of reasons. Google Bretton Woods. Do the minimal amount of work. This system was abandoned in 71, and the financial sector has grown since then, being deregulated and creating
complex financial instruments that makes no contribution to the real economy.

I will mention one specific policy which changed in 1982 which I’m particularly interested in. That’s the SEC rule about stock buybacks. Rule 10(b)-18, more specifically. This was repealed my Shad, a Reagan appointee. William Lazonick has done great work on this and its effects on corporations and the economy. The effects have been massive and awful. Only one of many examples, but an especially important one.

You suggest to view these men as inhuman monsters that reduce human beings to cogs in a market machine — Tzeentch

Nope. I’ve said many times that I respect Friedman, for example, and take him seriously— however wrong or misinterpreted I think he is.

Can you explain to me the economic mechanism that ensured, as you say, no major crashes took place during this period, and why we are not utilizing this mechanism today? — Tzeentch

There was government regulation of the financial sector. The banks were highly regulated. That’s why I referred to Bretton Woods. You’re free to Google those various regulations.

I truly hope you don't view classical liberalism as espousing such a view. — Tzeentch

Classical liberalism — in the example of Adam Smith — developed in a radically different world. What Smith describes is often completely ignored, particularly about markets. It’s not like Friedman or Sowell or Von Mises or Hayek or Rand or any of these other people you’re undoubtedly influenced by.

If you want to minimize the role of the central banks, be my guest. But that's nutty in this World, in my view. — ssu

Even in the face of an unprecedented global pandemic, supply disruptions, and war? Then it’s dogma.

If the government cannot cover it's expenses by tax revenues, it can turn to the central bank, which either buys government bonds to finance this or simply prints more money to cover the expenses. — ssu

That’s only partly true. The government does issue bonds, yes. The Fed owns a fraction of that debt — a fraction. We’ve been through that before. So there’s a thin connection between the central bank and congress— but that’s it. The rest are bought by foreign countries or by other government departments, like social security.

But regardless, fiscal policy is NOT monetary policy. The checks sent out to real people — which was much more than in 2009 — was not the decision of the Fed. It was a decision by congress, and sent through the treasury. The Fed doesn’t send stimulus checks. The Fed handles MONETARY POLICY, which is entirely different from FISCAL POLICY. Being clear on this is helpful. Blurring the lines like you’re doing, and then justifying it by stating that the Fed buys treasuries, is pure confusion.

The bottom line here is that inflation isn’t simple. It’s due to multiple factors. You choose to harp almost exclusively on monetary policy. Ask yourself why that might be.

it's about both monetary policy and events like Russo-Ukrainian war. And monetary policy here is actually linked to the COVID response. — ssu

We’ve established there are multiple factors. Monetary policy is a minor one— especially around the globe. You want to emphasize it over the others — and that’s nutty, in my view. Besides, you seem to be talking more about fiscal policy, which is different.

Let's keep the conversation honest. The birth of the United States was a period full of conflict and wars against nations that were at that time much more powerful. To just chalk that all up to "small government" is very convenient for you, and in my opinion bereft of any reason. — Tzeentch

I mentioned the 1780s. This was the time of the articles of confederation. Almost no central government— an extremely weak one. It couldn’t impose taxes, it couldn’t raise an army, it needed unanimous or near-unanimous approval of the states to do anything. Yes, I’d say that’s “small government.” And I don’t see anything dishonest about it.

As for the 1800s, I went over that as well.

Ups and downs is the nature of economics. It's exactly the desire to forcefully stop that fluctuation that makes government interventions so problematic. — Tzeentch

You call it “natural,” but that’s really no excuse. As I mentioned, there were no major crashes during the Bretton Woods era — when the financial sector was actually regulated.

So perhaps “natural” when left to their own devices.

Imperfect man will always need some government, but too often we forget that its the same imperfect man that takes the reigns in government. — Tzeentch

Yes, and reducing human purpose to competition in markets is insane.

If you argue that inflation doesn't export itself in a globalized world, you are simply going against the facts. — ssu

Of course it does. Which is why we see it all around the world. When you have an unprecedented global event, like COVID, there's no reason not to think in a globalized world that inflation wouldn't spread. Ditto with Russian oil sanctions and supply disruptions.

The global economy has had low inflation and low interest rates for many years. Before the financial sector and the central banks caused asset inflation. — ssu

Since the housing bubble and QE, there has been extremely low rates and no inflation. The Fed would have continued this trend had it not been for inflation. They kept rates ultra low for too long. I was talking about this last summer before inflation was even an issue. But raising rates will do next to nothing except lower what they are able to raise: stocks, bonds, housing. They can do nothing about Ukraine or supply chain shocks or COVID lockdowns or China's Zero Covid policies. If we're waiting around for the Fed to cause a recession to lower inflation, we just aren't paying attention to reality.

The Fed’s policies move asset prices. That’s it. Fiscal policy— the government giving it checks, etc. — has some effect, sure. But it does not account for the higher prices of oil and gas.
— Xtrix
Umm, I think you have not studied economics. — ssu

And I don't think you've studied reality. Again, my advice is to put down the theories and look around. It's tempting to want to attribute everything to a single cause -- like, say, the money supply -- but again, REALITY has a way of throwing such things off course.

We had QE, low rates, and fiscal stimulus in 2009 as well. People were screaming about inflation -- and there was none -- except in the asset classes I mentioned above. The Fed now does the same thing, assets hit a super bubble, and there's also inflation -- and people say "See, it's because there's too much money -- it's monetary policy!" No, it isn't. It's COVID and war. The unprecedented FISCAL stimulus (giving real people checks) had a small effect, too. To scream that inflation is due mostly to fiscal policy is wrong; to argue it's monetary policy is even more wrong.

Yes, regardless of what Milton Friedman says.

I do like to debate issues with you and don't want to be irritating or condescending. — ssu

What's irritating is that you're not listening.

So I'll give you an example of just why monetary policy and fiscal handouts do effect things like price of oil. — ssu

Without even reading further, I didn't say they don't effect the price of oil. I said the Fed can do nothing about the war in Ukraine or supply shocks -- which is obvious. The fiscal money has an effect on demand -- and there was indeed pent-up demand after the lockdowns. To argue this is the main driver of inflation is wrong.

Second question: If we agree that at least some would spend a lot more than before, do you think that their increased spending would create "supply chain issues" or not? — ssu

The argument being what, exactly? That giving people some extra money is what caused the oil prices to go up? You know very well that's not true.

Fiscal policy has an effect on demand -- but a much bigger effect were the lockdowns. Look at the change in behavior from 2020 to 2022. Even if people had the same amount of money as before, there would be high demand for services over goods in 2021/22. There were SOME supply problems in 2020 (toilet paper, paper towels, masks, etc) for a little while -- which had nothing to do with monetary or fiscal policy -- and they quickly caught up with demand. Prices of lumbar rose, etc. Basic supply/demand. What does this have to do with monetary policy?

In fairness, I knew he was referring to the era prior to FDR. That’s often how it’s taught, with some merit. The federal government’s role did indeed expand in the 30s. But so what? Given that we were in a depression, it was needed. Look at the results, more importantly.

The opposing argument is that it was the Fed that caused the depression— and that it was the war, not the new deal, that accounts for the greatness of the post war era. :snicker:

There’s really no convincing “Government is the problem” junkies.