Paul-led panel considers Fed abolishment bill

[Brass]

Quote from MKTrader:

From someone who lacks the ken to even get through the first couple of paragraphs of something like this:

http://mises.org/pdf/econcalc.pdf

Pot calling kettle...

Another reason not to engage too much around here: the drive-by posters who have never traded anything but food stamps.

Are you even remotely aware of the pre-intervention frequency and extent of panics and runs? No, I didn't think so. Please spare me your faith-based economics.

Oh, and here's a little quote from your hero:

"It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history."
--Ludwig von Mises

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises

 

[MKTrader]

Quote from Brass:

Are you even remotely aware of the pre-intervention frequency and extent of panics and runs? No, I didn't think so.

Do you realize how stupid that sounded? No, I didn't think so.

Yes, I'm aware of how the official (revisionist) history was used as a pretext for the modern interventionist state. I'm also aware that the pre-Fed, pre-income tax, "deflationary" late 1800s was infinitely better than the debt-ridden, regulation-crazy, parasite-driven, pre-Greece state we're in now. But if you're one of the parasites...

 

[MKTrader]

Quote from Brass:


Oh, and here's a little quote from your hero:

"It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history."
--Ludwig von Mises

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises [/B]

Seriously, are you a troll? Look up "context" in the dictionary. Then read the larger quote:

Fascism can triumph today because universal indignation at the infamies committed by the socialists and communists has obtained for it the sympathies of wide circles. But when the fresh impression of the crimes of the Bolsheviks has paled, the socialist program will once again exercise its power of attraction on the masses. For Fascism does nothing to combat it except to suppress socialist ideas and to persecute the people who spread them. If it wanted really to combat socialism, it would have to oppose it with ideas. There is, however, only one idea that can be effectively opposed to socialism, viz., that of liberalism.

It has often been said that nothing furthers a cause more than creating martyrs for it. This is only approximately correct. What strengthens the cause of the persecuted faction is not the martyrdom of its adherents, but the fact that they are being attacked by force, and not by intellectual weapons. Repression by brute force is always a confession of the inability to make use of the better weapons of the intellect — better because they alone give promise of final success. This is the fundamental error from which Fascism suffers and which will ultimately cause its downfall. The victory of Fascism in a number of countries is only an episode in the long series of struggles over the problem of property. The next episode will be the victory of Communism.

The ultimate outcome of the struggle, however, will not be decided by arms, but by ideas. It is ideas that group men into fighting factions, that press the weapons into their hands, and that determine against whom and for whom the weapons shall be used. It is they alone, and not arms, that, in the last analysis, turn the scales.

So much for the domestic policy of Fascism. That its foreign policy, based as it is on the avowed principle of force in international relations, cannot fail to give rise to an endless series of wars that must destroy all of modern civilization requires no further discussion. To maintain and further raise our present level of economic development, peace among nations must be assured. But they cannot live together in peace if the basic tenet of the ideology by which they are governed is the belief that one’s own nation can secure its place in the community of nations by force alone.

It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history. But though its policy has brought salvation for the moment, it is not of the kind which could promise continued success. Fascism was an emergency makeshift. To view it as something more would be a fatal error. (From Ludwig von Mises, Liberalism, section I:10)

http://www.adamsmith.org/research/articles/do-libertarians-apologise-for-autocracy

 

[achilles28]

Quote from Brass:

You're kidding, right? Monopolies in the making only offer lower prices until the competition is eliminated and the barriers to entry are effectively raised. And then it becomes a matter of what a captive market will bear. Did I really need to tell you that?

No, you didn't. Because once they squeeze the captive market with higher prices, competitors enter in force, and drive prices down. The only way a monopoly can exist is via predatory pricing (which is economically beneficially), or Government regulation (which is not, obviously).

 

[Brass]

Quote from MKTrader:

Seriously, are you a troll? Look up "context" in the dictionary...

Oh, so Mises thought that fascism was only a qualified success rather than one of unmitigated merit. Got it. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Brass]

Quote from achilles28:

No, you didn't. Because once they squeeze the captive market with higher prices, competitors enter in force, and drive prices down. The only way a monopoly can exist is via predatory pricing (which is economically beneficially), or Government regulation (which is not, obviously).

Ah, yes. The Invisible Hand will come to the rescue. And all everyone has to do it wait for something to emerge from the ashes of the decimated competition, at which time the monopoly will once again mightily obliterate any upstart and thereby discourage future efforts. And so, the consumer will be subject to years of "take it or leave it" punctuated by fleeting periods of something approaching actual competition. Yeah, what could be better?

 

[achilles28]

Quote from Brass:

Ah, yes. The Invisible Hand will come to the rescue. And all everyone has to do it wait for something to emerge from the ashes of the decimated competition, at which time the monopoly will once again mightily obliterate any upstart and thereby discourage future efforts. And so, the consumer will be subject to years of "take it or leave it" punctuated by fleeting periods of something approaching actual competition. Yeah, what could be better?

That's a fairy tale. Care to cite any historical examples where monopolistic gouging wasn't met with fierce competitive blow-back?

 

[Brass]

Quote from achilles28:

That's a fairy tale. Care to cite any historical examples where monopolistic gouging wasn't met with fierce competitive blow-back?

It has been over a decade since I read the book but, as I recall, the only thing that stopped Rockefeller's effective monopoly was anti-trust legislation. Until then, he essentially did as he pleased, quashing competitors with regularity and ease.

http://www.amazon.com/Titan-The-Lif...7303/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1336491648&sr=8-1

Oh, and have a look at the pre-anti-trust glory days:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil#Monopoly_charges_and_anti-trust_litigation

Self-serving conduct such as predatory pricing and other discriminatory practices do not ultimately benefit the consumer or end user. If you're okay with that, fine. But don't pretend to be on the side of the "little guy." The Invisible Hand was clasping his throat.

 

[achilles28]

Quote from Brass:

It has been over a decade since I read the book but, as I recall, the only thing that stopped Rockefeller's effective monopoly was anti-trust legislation. Until then, he essentially did as he pleased, quashing competitors with regularity and ease.

http://www.amazon.com/Titan-The-Lif...7303/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1336491648&sr=8-1

Oh, and have a look at the pre-anti-trust glory days:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil#Monopoly_charges_and_anti-trust_litigation

Self-serving conduct such as predatory pricing and other discriminatory practices do not ultimately benefit the consumer or end user. If you're okay with that, fine. But don't pretend to be on the side of the "little guy." The Invisible Hand was clasping his throat.

Most of Standards monopoly was enforced through predatory pricing. So what? The general economy benefited enormously from low oil prices. And when they lightened up on pricing, within 10 years, they lost nearly 40% of their market share. That's how it works. Either the monopoly has to suppress prices low enough to keep competition out. Or competition comes in and takes market share. There was nothing inherently wrong with standard oil except rigging the railroads. However, pipelines and waterway transport came in big to circumvent SO control over the trains. Nothing to see here. Predatory pricing is a great thing. Quite the opposite. And second, it's extremely rare. I don't know of one other example where predatory pricing existed for any considerable length of time.

 

[dtan1e]

Quote from achilles28:

Most of Standards monopoly was enforced through predatory pricing. So what? The general economy benefited enormously from low oil prices. And when they lightened up on pricing, within 10 years, they lost nearly 40% of their market share. That's how it works. Either the monopoly has to suppress prices low enough to keep competition out. Or competition comes in and takes market share. There was nothing inherently wrong with standard oil except rigging the railroads. However, pipelines and waterway transport came in big to circumvent SO control over the trains. Nothing to see here. Predatory pricing is a great thing. Quite the opposite. And second, it's extremely rare. I don't know of one other example where predatory pricing existed for any considerable length of time.

Impressive !!