Dglgmut

Members
  • Content Count

    1,186
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About Dglgmut

  • Rank
    $$$$$$

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
    Calvin
  • Looking or Not Looking
    not looking

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. When called out on the increase in money supply and how that could lead to inflation, Keynesians say, "But it doesn't matter how much money is out there if people aren't spending it!" So why isn't the money being spent and what exactly would cause the money to be spent in a way that would start inflation running away from the central planners?
  2. By liquidated capital I mean people selling capital for a fraction of the original cost--stocks, equipment, land and buildings. I hope the hyper inflation you describe is not going to happen in North America. I'm not sure how many $ trillion would have to be in circulation for that to be possible... but if the Fed keeps injecting stimulus at some point the game of hot-potato could start. It would just take one economically prominent country to start trading with a gold backed currency. I'm more curious how exactly, say, 20% or 30% price inflation could happen without a proportional change in the money supply. The proportions of money supply to consumer good prices has heavily favored money supply for decades now... but at what point do those proportions balance out and how? (Austrian economists all seem to think this crisis is definitely going to lead to this correction, but I just don't understand the mechanics.)
  3. I should have titled this thread something else because I want to ask questions now that I'm having a problem getting the answers to. My big question is: when does price inflation start? Of course there has been steady price inflation of consumer goods for a while, which is a consequence of credit expansion and spending on capital, then trickling down. But when liquidation of capital starts, does that money necessarily make its way into consumer goods (causing price inflation)? Or is the inflation we will experience more likely because of supply chain issues? Or is the real issue going to be a decline of confidence in the dollar (and would that necessarily lead to hyper inflation--the scales tipping completely to high time preference)? Also, is there enough money in circulation already for massive inflation, or would hyper inflation have to be caused by a panicked response from the Fed?
  4. Well, the consensus among Austrians is that massive price inflation is coming, and they definitely connect it to the size of the money supply. But I'm just curious about how that inflation will start. Is it more extreme inflation of the money supply that they anticipate? Or is all the money that's already out there being held onto, and will turn into a game of hot potato at a certain point?
  5. There's no Economics forum, so I thought this might be the best one to post in. This is actually a question, or a request. So there is an Austrian idea that inflation of the money supply will necessarily cause inflation. I don't think this is actually true, as just because money is out there doesn't necessarily mean it's being spent. So velocity has more of an impact on inflation than the actual supply (of course increased supply could very well increase volatility). But the real question for me is, rather than focusing on where the money is going, where is the wealth, or the value, going? How has inflation been kept in check despite the money supply being jacked up by the trillions? I believe economic stimulus is a crock, that leads to malinvestment and moral hazard, but what is the real cost to everyday people? The threat has always been inflation... but again, how has that been avoided for so long? Just because people are still holding USD? Thanks for any explanation of this!
  6. At a time like this I think good communication is as valuable as ever... Getting our points across and connecting with people, rather than creating a bigger divide, is probably a better strategy than just writing people off. So I was thinking about the difference in how the two sides see things right now. Of course there are not really two sides, but if everyone was asked to pick one, they'd at least have an idea of which one they'd be more comfortable joining. So while I would consider myself more conservative, more libertarian, I am surrounded by liberals and socialists. Although it is 100% ignorance that leads to someone subscribing to an ideology like socialism, or God forbid, communism, I think it's valuable to try to understand the reasoning that helped them arrive at these conclusions. And without getting specific, because there's so many different people who have taken different cognitive paths, the broad answer is, and the break down of the "two sides," really comes down to top-down vs bottom-up thinking. Principles are inherently bottom-up in nature; they are rules to guide behavior regardless of outcome. That's why capitalists ask things like, "Why is inequality necessarily a bad thing?" But for a socialist, they look at how things are and see all these problems linked to inequality... Being ignorant, they arrive at the overly simplified answer that "capitalists are evil." Even the definitions of evil are different. Stealing from a corporation isn't seen as evil by a socialist because it doesn't seem to cause any problems when you look at it from the top-down. But you're principles are evil because they lead to some people not having healthcare. So while I understand Rand saying that capitalism doesn't need to be defended from an economic standpoint, but rather on the basis of morality, I don't think those two things are as different as she thought. A person's idea of the economy, or society, can still be judged morally the way we judge anything else... a healthy economy is of more value than a poor economy, and a happy society is of more value than a depressed society. It's just a matter of how people look at things and where their starting point is. So what I'm saying is that to convince someone that socialism is not the answer, as a lot of people are really hoping for that right now, I think the case has to be made from a top-down, inductive reasoning method that does not preclude morality. Some thoughts...
  7. Persuasion's got nothing to do with it... This is just another excuse for people with no outlet for their aggression to release it righteously (safely). Look how indignant Greta is; and you can be too!
  8. Can you be more specific? How was it determined that almost all humans want something more? What kind of experiment was this???
  9. Yes, over time. Just as exposure therapy gradually reduces the specific form of aversion, voluntarily avoiding something slowly creates the sense in the person that they cannot confront that thing. So the less you use volition the less you believe you are capable of it. Also, having little willpower left at the end of the day is called ego-depletion.
  10. I think Sam Harris would argue that thought is the result of physical processes, and thus it is not the thought per se, but the physical aspect of that thought which creates the change in neural pathways. So again, it is really impossible to prove, within the realm of physics, that free will exists. As for eliminating the self, I assume you mean the concept of self. In that case I think you're right that eliminating the concept of self, or the ego, makes for much more predictable behavior. This video was removed from YouTube, but I think it's got some very interesting points that relate to this subject, especially coming from a 14 year old girl. She even mentions hearing from a friend in high school that he was being taught that there is no self. https://www.bitchute.com/video/OdaUDeAGIck/
  11. I'm atheist and spiritual. I just think our spirit is part of the physical world, and that free-will is self-evident.
  12. I think a determinist would simply say that the process of raising your arm is not simply the brain signalling for the arm to move, but also the brain activity that would be required for the decision making process. The example you quoted is a simpler, and contradictory, one to the two experiments brought up in the "Free Will Debunked" video (Benjamin Libet and Chong Siong Soon). I think this is a metaphysical question. I doubt we will find any physical evidence for free will.
  13. The denial of "persisting subject of experience" is pretty drastic. Sam Harris is definitely not on that level. I don't know how someone can believe that... You wouldn't be able to function at all...
  14. As for your observation of the YouTuber "debunking" free-will, I think you are right. Jordan Peterson and Slavoj Zizek had a discussion in which Zizek said something very interesting about the concept of no-self: he brought up a Maoist soldier or police officer who used the Buddhist concept of no-self to rationalize his murdering of innocent people. This soldier's thought process was that if he had no self, then nobody was truly responsible for the murders... This is such an important aspect of the general philosophy permeating Western culture, it might be the most fundamental belief that allows for someone's behavior to be controlled.
  15. I'm curious if you are familiar with Sam Harris' thoughts on spirituality? He is very interested and educated on aspects of Buddhism and has even developed a phone app for meditating. He has also has a book called "Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion." Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but I am sure he is a dualist. I wouldn't call it a mind/body split, as he sees experience completely determined by the brain, but observed by something else.