#Arkhaven INFOGALACTIC #Castalia House
No doubt every Gamma male and woman who treasures her Gamma orbiters will want to run out and buy one of these fine emblems of totally not being a rapist. Available in a wide range of pastel colors. After all, you’re going to need something to wear when you’re on the dancefloor with your quad-gendered acquaintances grooving to the Pink Rabbit Posse.
100 percent cotton and 100 percent guaranteed to prevent sexually-transmitted disease.
Since I agreed to start the debate, I did not go back and re-read Nate’s initial and inadvertent post on the subject to which I linked last week. This is not a response to that post, but as will soon become readily apparent, is a reversion to the foundation for our difference of opinion.
There are, as those who will recall my pair of YouTube videos on the subject, a variety of definitions of inflation. The Neo-Keynesians alone have no less than five: theoretical, official, textbook, practical, and core. It’s not necessary to get into any of them now, however, because they all eventually point to the same subject, and ultimately, the same question: what is money? This is the crux of the matter, because despite the various opinions concerning the subject of inflation, what it is, and precisely what causes it, there is no extant theory of economics that takes serious exception to Milton Friedman’s statement that “inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon”, the outdated and long-disproven Keynesian notion that it is a phenomenon somehow inversely related to unemployment notwithstanding.
In reviewing the various definitions of money and looking at everything from Richard Cantillon to the three major current schools, Samuelsonian, Friedmanite, and Austrian, it rapidly became clear that the Austrian School economist, Joseph Salerno, had already walked the path that I was beginning to tread in his excellent paper “Two Traditions in Modern Monetary Theory: John Law and A.R.J. Turgot”, which is the first essay in his book Money, Sound and Unsound. In this essay, Salerno shows that there are fundamentally two competing ideas about money, neither of which are even remotely new, as both monetary doctrines predate Adam Smith.
Of the first tradition, which dates back to John Law, Salerno writes:
In 1705, Law published his principal work on money, entitled Money and Trade Considered: With a Proposal for Supplying the Nation with Money. Law’s “proposal” was intended to provide his native Scotland with a plentiful supply of money endowed with a long-run stability of value. The institutional centerpiece envisioned in Law’s scheme resembles a modern central bank, empowered to supply paper fiat money via the purchases and sales of securities and other assets on the open market. Also strikingly modern are the theoretical propositions with which Law supports his policy goals and prescriptions.
Law initiates his monetary theorizing with two fundamental assumptions about the nature and function of money. The first is that if money is not exactly an original creation of political authority, it ideally functions as a tool to be molded and wielded by government. Law believes that the State, as incarnated in the King, is the de facto “owner” of the money supply and that it therefore possesses the right and the power to determine the composition and quantity of money in light of the “public interest.”
Writes Law:All the coin of the Kingdom belongs to the State, represented in France by the King: it belongs to him in precisely the same way as the high roads do, not that he may appropriate them as his own property, but in order to prevent others doing so; and as it is one of the rights of the King, and of the King alone, to make changes in the highways for the benefit of the public, of which he (or his officers) is the sole judge, so it is also one of his rights to change the gold or silver coin into other exchange tokens, of greater benefit to the public.…
Translating Law’s statement into modern terms, money is an “instrument” that is or should be deliberately designed to achieve the “policy goals” considered desirable by political money managers and other government planners.
Law’s second basic assumption is that money serves solely as a “voucher for buying goods” or an “exchange token.” Thus, for Law, “Money is not the value for which goods are exchanged, but the value by which they are exchanged: The use of money is to buy goods and silver, while money is of no other use.” In other words, money is a dematerialized claim to goods having no valuable use in itself.
It is more than a little startling to read Law’s statements, particularly in light of the smug, self-satisfied way we hear the same sentiments echoed more than three hundred years later by those who think themselves clever for realizing that money has no intrinsic value, and therefore, cannot possibly serve as a store of value in its own right, as it only possesses the exchange value conferred upon it by the power of the State.
Salerno notes that the Law monetary tradition is the dominant one, and comments: “The neo-Keynesians, monetarists, and supply-siders, differ among themselves in important areas of theory and policy, but all share most of Law’s fundamental ideas about money.” He goes into some detail concerning the primary factors the three schools share concerning money and monetary policy, which include:
I will not go into detail to support Salerno’s conclusions, but a brief glimpse at the most influential textbook in modern economic history, Paul Samuelson’s Economics, should suffice to prove that they are fair and accurate.
“There are two distinct functions of money: as a medium of exchange and as a standard unit of value…. We may summarize our analysis of the use of money by listing its two essential functions: (1) as a medium of exchange and (2) as a standard unit of account or common denominator of values.”
– Economics, pp 57-58
The second and competing monetary tradition traces back to Turgot, the man whom Joseph Schumpeter and the Austrian School tend to regard, with Richard Cantillon, as the true father of modern economics, whose rightful place in the history of economic thought has been usurped by Adam Smith. Of the Turgot tradition, Salerno writes:
Turgot flatly rejects Law’s primary contention that money is merely an exchange token, whose supply must be manipulated by the political authorities in order to achieve selected policy goals. According to Turgot money is essentially a medium of exchange and the unit in which relative prices are expressed: “These two properties, of serving as a common measure of all values [i.e., the unit in which all prices are expressed] and of being a representative pledge of all commodities of a like value [i.e., the medium of exchange], include all that constitutes the essence and utility of what is called money.…”
As Turgot points out, however, these two functions of money can only be performed by an article which is already widely used, valued, and exchanged under barter: “… all money is essentially merchandise. We can take for a common measure of values only that which has a value, and which is received in Commerce in exchange for other values: and there is no pledge universally representative of a value save another equal value.” Since money thus necessarily originates as a useful commodity from within the market economy itself, Turgot emphatically denies the possibility that “a purely conventional money” without a pre-existing purchasing power can be imposed from outside the market. According to Turgot, “It is not in virtue of a convention that money is exchanged against all other values; it is because money itself is an object of commerce, a part of wealth, because it itself has a value, and in trade all values are exchanged against equal values.”
So, the primary factors of money in the Turgot tradition are:
Having laid out the two primary definitions of money, I now turn it over to Nate to declare which of these two competing traditions he holds to be money, or if he has some third definition of money he believes would be better utilized concerning this debate.
I thought these thoughts from Sarahsdaughter made for important reading for men and women alike:
I’ve come to understand that my first response is often times
1)emotional and irrational 2)based in fear (not truth) 3)not the same
response I might have later after processing information 4)should not be
verbalized until said processing of information is done.We, as
women understand and find no issue with the fact that we need to go
through these processes in order to figure out what is true – even when
it comes to our feelings. We want to talk it through. And then, we have a
tendency to arrive at new conclusions without going back and
apologizing for emotional outbursts that were based on wrong
conclusions.
Read the rest at Alpha Game.
Rollo responds to a meme popular among some women: “I’m selfish, impatient and a little insecure. I make mistakes, I am out
of control and at times hard to handle. But if you can’t handle me at
my worst, then you sure as hell don’t deserve me at my best.”
That’s not a bad response. But Shiunji Watanabe’s is arguably more tolerant, less judgmental, and thereby superior in every way. Now, THERE is a man who could truly handle a woman at her worst. And don’t forget, 95 percent of all the weirdness in the world comes out of Japan. True science fact.
However, since we are considering the wit and wisdom of Marilyn Monroe, surely we would be wise to also contemplate the noted English philosophers collectively known as One Direction?
1. A lack of consciousness of her beauty is what makes a woman beautiful.
2. There is no woman less conscious of her beauty than a dead women.
3. Therefore, dead women are the most beautiful.
ὅπερ ἔδει δεῖξαι. Thereby justifying not only Mr. Watanabe, but the infamous Hoodoogurus. Now, I can hear some of you wondering if presenting logically impeccable arguments for necrophilia are the right way to go about winning the upcoming SFWA election, but keep in mind that these are the very people who have created a global cottage industry out of thinly disguised necrophilia and bestiality, to say nothing of electing McRapey not once, not twice, but thrice.
BR asks about the consequences of cheap and easy grace:
As always, thanks for the work you do. Your blogs are exceedingly useful to me in organizing my own thoughts on everything from politics to relationships. Unless I’m completely confused, I believe you consider yourself a Christian. As you seem to also be a Man of Reason, I assume a large part of your Faith is also rooted in Reason. I love Reason-based Faith. One of the main reasons I don’t subscribe to any religion is because I find too many people in religions that subscribe to the fallacy that Religion and Reason are not compatible. I tend to dislike Atheists for the same reason. Yes, The Irrational Atheist is queued on my Kindle.
Today’s question is on the Christian Principle of Forgiveness. Does Christ want us to forgive people who harm us in the absence of any sort of reparation? And I mean harm, not mean words that hurt our feelings. Words and actions that cause our standard of living to be reduced.
It seems that most “mainstream Christians” believe Christ taught that we should forgive people who harm us regardless of whether that person makes any attempt to undo the damage they caused. However, this seems to be to be in direct opposition to Christ’s own actions. God forgave us our sins not in a vacuum, but only because of Christ’s sacrifice. This to me is more Redemption, than Forgiveness. Sinning comes with a price tag, however that price was paid for us. Had it not been, we would not have been forgiven. If you and I went to dinner, and I paid the bill, you would not say that the restaurant forgave your debt to them. The debt was still paid, just not by you.
This position seems to be taken most often in regards to unintentional harm. Harm done not out of malice, but through negligence and carelessness. However, this still seems to be at odds with other aspects of Christian theology. I am not Christian, and therefore will not receive the benefit of Christ’s sacrifice. Yes he died for my sins, but until I take the additional step of acknowledging his sacrifice and committing to his principles, I don’t get the benefit. In other words, I have to do something to gain forgiveness.
I agree that a person who makes reparations for harm they unintentionally do should be forgiven. If a person accidentally rear ends my car, but pays for all of the repairs, it is absurd for me to hold a grudge against them. On the other hand, if the person accidentally read ends my car, but refuses to pay for the repairs, it would be equally absurd for me to forgive them. However, it seems to me this is exactly what many mainstream Christians seem to think should be done.
I’m bringing the question to you because I think it dovetails with the “saving Western Civilization” aspect of your blogs. It seems one of the biggest problems we have in modern society is everyone going around doing whatever they want without regard to the consequences. Obviously, when their actions only harm themselves, I don’t care. When their actions cause harm to another person, they simply say “I’m sorry”, and expect that to somehow be enough. Unfortunately, “I’m sorry” doesn’t make my car functional again. This problem is further compounded by the above “forgiveness fallacy”, because society now refuses to hold these people accountable. I don’t mean in a criminal prosecution sense, but in a social consequences sense. Because everyone is so eager to forgive everyone else, there are no social consequences for bad behavior. Because there are no social consequences, the bad behavior continues, and the harm done to others by the bad behavior continues to mount. This harm ultimately results in misplaced resources, which leads to a lower standard of living.
An example: I rent my spare room to a tenant. The lease requires that rent is paid by a certain date, and defines penalties for failure. The first time my tenant missed his rent, I slapped him with the fine. He was never late again. I could have chosen to “forgive” him because he simply forgot to pay, and not levied the fine, but then what reason would he have to pay his rent on time? The harm done by not paying his rent goes beyond simple financial transactions. I have my own bills to pay, and depend on his rent to make them. If he is routinely late on his rent, I have to hold more cash reserves to ensure I can pay my bills on time. This additional money just sitting around “just in case” is an inefficient use of resources. It’s either unavailable to purchase goods and services, thereby reducing the number of people employed in the production of those goods and services; or it’s unavailable for investment, which costs me money due to lost opportunities (as well as costing another person an opportunity due the reduction of loanable funds in the system).
Taking the example further, if he were routinely late, but always paid the late fee, I would actually be doing him a disservice to completely forgive him this constant “sin”. By not holding him socially accountable for this lazy attitude, I provide him no incentive to correct his behavior. Even though it’s his choice to effectively pay a higher rent than the market demands, it reduces his standard of living. While I could certainly take the position that it’s none of my business, such lack of concern would seem to be at odds with Christ’s message. In other words, letting your child eat chocolate cake for breakfast is not love.
Cheap and easy grace, as well as ready forgiveness for sins not repented, is the hallmark of modern Churchianity. It is also indicative of a false and overtly anti-Christian religion that cloaks itself in Christian language. The parents who make a showy scene of publicly providing unrequested forgiveness to the murderer of their only daughter when the man responsible refuses to even admit the crime aren’t demonstrating their Christianity, they are simply posturing emotionally, because repentance is required as a part of the process of forgiveness.
God doesn’t forgive the unrepentant and therefore neither should the Christian.
One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: “Aren’t you the Christ? Save yourself and us!” But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.” Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” Jesus answered him, “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise.” – Luke 23:39-43
Notice that Jesus doesn’t tell both criminals they will be with him in paradise, only the repentant man. When he does ask his Father to forgive the unrepentant, he does so because “they know not what they do”. So, my conclusion that the Christian can forgive, without repentance, those who do their harm in ignorance, but not those who willfully intend a harmful course of action.
I would, of course, be remiss if I did not point out that BR is making the same mistake I once made, which is to judge the -ism by the -ist. This is logically fallacious, particularly considering that Christianity not only accounts for, but depends upon, the imperfection of Man.
Richard Dawkins isn’t so keen on criticizing the God of the Koran:
Asked if he thought the same of the God of the Koran, Dawkins ducked the question, saying: “Well, um, the God of the Koran I don’t know so much about.”
How can it be that the world’s most fearless atheist, celebrated for his strident opinions on the Christian and Jewish Gods, could profess to know so little about the God of the Koran? Has he not had the time? Or is Professor Dawkins simply demonstrating that most crucial trait of his species: survival instinct.
Whoops. It’s funny how these confident, cocksure prophets of atheism-who barely have time to take a breath between slamming the tenets of Christianity and Judaism-often get curiously tongue-tied and shy when the subject of Islam comes up. The idea that Dawkins doesn’t “know so much about” the God of the Koran is absurd. Of course he knows about Islam. And the same disdain and disregard that he has for Judaism and Christianity should surely apply to Islam as well.
The truth is that bashing and mocking Judaism and Christianity is easy and painless. You’ll get praise and admiration from those within the “right” circles of academia, media, and entertainment. Your opponents will argue with and debate your views and they may even offer (gasp) to pray for you. There’s no real price to pay at all.
Well, I know I’m shocked….
What is the point of regulating anything, given the difference between theoretical regulation and its actual results?
In the 120 samples labeled red snapper and bought for testing nationwide, for example, 28 different species of fish were found, including 17 that were not even in the snapper family, according to the study, which was released Thursday.
The study also contained surprises about where consumers were most likely to be misled — sushi bars topped the list in every city studied — while grocery stores were most likely to be selling fish honestly. Restaurants ranked in the middle.
Part of the problem, said the study’s chief author, Kimberly Warner, is that there are quite simply a lot of fish in the sea, and many of them look alike. Over all, the study found that about one-third of the 1,215 fish samples bought, from 2010 to 2012, were mislabeled.
I understand why people like the idea of regulation. But if it fails nearly one-third of the time, is it actually doing anything? What would happen without all the expense and effort of government regulation, would everyone be eating cod-oil infused vegetables instead of fish instead of only one-third of the people getting the wrong fish? Would anyone even notice if the SEC employees weren’t keeping their eagle eyes on internet pornthe markets?
“Stupid Party” no longer suffices to do justice to the Republican Party and its determined efforts to demographically extinguish itself. Steve Sailer points to the obvious problem:
I recently asked if anybody has checked whether Hispanic voters, the majority of whom are of Mexican background, actually like Senator Marco Rubio (R-CUBA). A reader points me to this December survey by Public Policy Polling of 700 registered voters, showing approval ratings for potential 2016 candidates. Among the 90 or so Hispanic voters surveyed, only 24% were favorable toward Rubio, while 42% said they were were unfavorable.
First, it should be noted that the Great Brown Republican Hope isn’t even eligible to be president. Second, as Sailer notes, Hispanics aren’t even favorably inclined towards the guy anyhow. Third, either Republicans embrace their observable identity as the White party and start running on racial and national policies or they are going to be supplanted by a party who will.
Playing the Hey, We Got One Too game with a Black or Hispanic candidate has never worked for Republicans and there is no reason to believe it is going to work in 2016. If Republicans wish to pursue the minority vote, there is a much more effective way to go about winning it. Simply take whatever spending the Democrat proposes and quintuple it every single time. If Democrats pledge $100 billion for Head Start, pledge $500 billion, with $100 billion earmarked for Black children, $100 billion for Hispanics, and another $100 billion for illegals of all nations.
Seriously. We all know the Republican Party sold out whatever republican principles it had long ago, so they should just stop pretending and go about nakedly pursuing power in an honest and straightforward manner.
[Redacted due to a violation of SFWA Forum policies, which forbids both quoting and paraphrasing of Forum discussions. Also, I should mention that I was in error in assuming that a question on the Forum was directed at me; it was directed at another individual’s post that I did not see. My apologies to the questioner.]
If I win I will form a committee consisting of one author from each major publisher, who will be charged with discussing the issue with their publisher and receiving either a confirmation or a denial that the publisher has engaged in “bestseller campaigns” via bulk-buying or other methods. What will be done with that information will be up to the membership, but at least they will be informed as to the facts of the situation.
Anyhow, it struck me that the problem of the appearance of corruption in science fiction and fantasy might have an easy solution. Since Tor and its authors appear to be inordinately focused on seeing their names on bestseller lists and being nominated for awards, why not give them exactly what they want? The SFWA can give out two Best Novel awards, one for Best Novel and another for Best Tor Novel. That way, all the Tor writers can take turns giving each other awards, which is pretty much what they already do anyhow, and all the other books published in the genre can be considered on their literary merits. This would likely result in the genre’s best writers, such as Neal Stephenson, Charles Stross, and China Mieville, finally having a reasonable chance of winning and thereby legitimizing the Nebula awards again.
The alternative is for the organization to continue to hand out Nebula awards for Best Science Fiction Novel to parodies of Regency romances and thereby looking increasingly insane, until McRapey finally wins one for his historic “reboot” of John Norman, Cisgenders of Gor.
As for the bestseller campaigns, I have a solution there too. Because the NYT is desperate for cash, it can surely be convinced to create a new SFWA Bestsellers category to which the various SF/F publishers can subscribe and be charged a moderate subscription fee. Different slots will be sold each month, and the publisher can place whatever title he wants each week in the slots he owns that month. Everyone can become a “New York Times Bestselling author” whether their books come anywhere close to the top 100-selling books or not, and the publishers can slap “New York Times Bestseller” on every book they publish. Everyone is happy, everyone wins!
Two brilliant solutions. Frankly, I’ll be shocked if they don’t elect me dictator-for-life. Also, given what I am told about the vital importance of these lists, I should appreciate it if every reference to me in the future includes “TwoThree-time Billboard Top 40 Recording Artist”.
That could be used to hang the American people. These firearms companies deserve the business of all pro-freedom, pro-Second Amendment individuals:
A growing number of firearm and firearm-related companies have stated they will no longer sell items to states, counties, cities and municipalities that restrict their citizens’ rights to own them. According to The Police Loophole, 34 companies have joined in publicly stating that governments who seek to restrict 2nd Amendment rights will themselves be restricted from purchasing the items they seek to limit or ban.
You can see the entire list here.