Comments for Too Big to Bail

Comment on Why Friedman Misunderstood Physics and Mises Was Right about Economics by CrisisMaven

CrisisMaven — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 20:53:59 +0000

Thanks for sharing this anmd looking forward to finding it on mises.org! Ah, Mathematical Econonmics! By the way, I have just added a Reference List to my economics blog with economic data series, history, bibliographies etc. for students & researchers. Currently over 200 meta sources, it will in the next days grow to over a thousand. Check it out and if you miss something, feel free to leave a comment.

Comment on Reflecting on Bastiat’s simple lesson before Christmas by Sonic Ninja Kitty

Sonic Ninja Kitty — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 17:17:02 +0000

Nice blog! (I linked here through mises.org) Keep up the good work and come visit mine, too, if you have the time!

Comment on English “Defence” League and “Unite” against Facism by Abhi

Abhi — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 14:53:45 +0000

I certainly will Jasmine, I would urge you to look up the writings of Hans Hoppe and Murray Rothbard on this subject as well.
I see no reason why we should a priori support monopolies over final decision making and defence, indeed I think history shows the inevitable abuses that result from such systems, perhaps most corrosively with the experience of democracies and popular nationalist movements of the 20th century. I also see no reason why we can similiarly rule out a priori the framework of a competitive, contractual society dealing with these challenges. This is why I feel the word anarchy does not provide a fitting description of this solution. Indeed there is no reason to rule out the formation of sets and norms for contractual and legal frameworks emerging outside the state. Indeed this is well evidenced in the development of medieval commercial law, where these private frameworks far outcompeted the individual states in terms of smoothness and regularity of operation.
Indeed, I think monopolies in these areas are probably the most destructive of all monopolies, as they favour and can create all other monopolies and abuses.

Comment on English “Defence” League and “Unite” against Facism by Jasmine

Jasmine — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 14:37:59 +0000

Abhi,
No dvision of labor society or human civilization of even the basic, rudimentary type, leave alone an advanced industrial civilization can survive under anarchy.
While I could not find a definition for “anarchocapitalist” in the Cambridge online dictionary, the meaning for anarchist was given as “someone who wishes to destroy the existing government and laws”.
“Anarchocapitalist” in my estimation is one of the most bizarre terms coined, based on the meaning of capitalism and anarchy separately, since they are completely antithetical concepts.
Capitalism and anarchy are contradictory ideas that can never survive in the same society or culture -and not in the same individual’s ideas for sure.
The end road of anarchy is complete destruction. An individual who fights for a capitalist society cannot in any seriousness call himself an anarchist of any sort, in my estimation.
Check your premises.
All the best.

Comment on English “Defence” League and “Unite” against Facism by Abhi

Abhi — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 13:54:02 +0000

Hello Jasmine,
that would be true, I do sympathise with the views of Hans Hermann Hoppe and Murray Rothbard with regard to thee matters, and in that sense could be characterised an “anarchocapitalist”, though i don’t terribly like the use of that term. Incidentally neither did Gustave de Molinari, the first person to think consistently enough to come up with these ideas.
Thanks for the book recommendations, I will try to get round to reading Rand at some point. At the moment I’m still fully engaged in economics when I’m not doing physics. Could I also recommend you try reading Hans Hoppe’s “Protection and the Market for Security”?
Good to hear from you, and thanks for the comment,
Abhi

Comment on English “Defence” League and “Unite” against Facism by Jasmine

Jasmine — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 02:28:13 +0000

Abhi,
you wrote: ‘I oppose government anyway’ -that would make you an anarchist?
I will say that statement is concerning.
Suggested reading to help clarify and correct some of your premises on the nature and role of government: “Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal” which consists of essays written primarily by the fiction writer & philosopher, Ayn Rand.

Comment on How I became an “Austrian” Economist by lousyd

lousyd — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 20:33:57 +0000

You say yourself, “I am not a student of Economics”, but the title of your post says you are an economist!
I like your writing style. You are very good with your language. I consider myself an Austrian economics… uh… theoretician as well (but not an economist!). I’m always appreciative of clear and correct writing on the nature of economics, and I’m glad I found your blog.

Comment on How I became an “Austrian” Economist by Jasmine

Jasmine — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 19:08:53 +0000

Welcome to the world of Ludwig Von Mises!
I loved your article (happened by chance to read it on Mises.org). As someone who grew up in India before moving to the US, I can relate to some of what you write.
My regret has been that I did not read Human Action a lot earlier in life -but better late than never!
Physics and Economics -now there is a really interesting academic combination! All the best with your academic work.
Jasmine

Comment on How I became an “Austrian” Economist by Abhi

Abhi — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 13:21:09 +0000

Interesting, you refer to Das having a capitalist “ideology.” Do you take the polylogist marxian view that economists like Mises are simply apologists of the bourgeoisie, and hence use a flawed “bourgeois logic” that bears no relevance to the enlightened “proletarian logic?” I actually said explicitly in my article that I do not agree with Das on all matters, so I don’t think you are warranted criticising me for copying his ideology, whatever you mean by the use of that term.
“And dont get me started on Mises’ ideas, they are even more funamentally flawed. ” I’d love to get you started on Mises’ ideas! Would you like to carry on this conversation via email? I’m interested as to what specifc criticisms you have of his Economics and his methodology. We can have more room, and go into more detail in an email exchange.
Also, please don’t take personally my mention of your English. I tend to dislike people who use intellectual authority as a tool of debate rather than the merit of their argument, though I’m sure this may not have been your aim. The bad English combined with this just ticked me off a little.
Wish you well

Comment on How I became an “Austrian” Economist by Dr Money-bags

Dr Money-bags — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 13:30:22 +0000

I’m sorry if my spelling and grammar upset you, and hope you enjoyed my comment nevertheless. English isn’t my native tongue. You’re point about Gauss’ sum is mute. If he reached an incorrect solution and you reached the same solution then it would be fair to assume that you had copied his flawed logic. This may not be the case with Gauss however with your regurgitation of Das’ capatalist idealogies, this appears to be the case.
And dont get me started on Mises’ ideas, they are even more funamentally flawed.