Forum Replies Created
Your comments on Stephen King really resonate. Stephen King is a ridiculously good writer–maybe the best in my very limited experience; however, his stories are so dark and despairing that I personally prefer the stories of Dean Koontz. Also, given that I am more prone to thinking than reading (working on that) it is amazing at how often my thoughts from no other source, secularly, than my own reasoning echo thoughts of many philosophers throughout the ages and much of the thought within the Catholic Church. Things such as the fear of God–the terrifying reality of our fallen nature when compared to the fullness and goodness of God, and, the beautiful aspect of our suffering that, even though it is not of our choice, we still can offer it up for truth’s sake–thus becoming a very profound sacrifice. Your courses are enriching my life more than you could know. I only hope that the experience has benefits for humanity that we are unable to fully grasp; especially, because to try to share these affections seems so dampening.
Yuri, in this interview (last third) mentions Mises’ view on the types of socialism… https://mises.org/library/yuri-maltsev-socialism-fascism-and-trumpism
Okay, well I guess I would say it was a socialist program within the framework of a more broadly based managerial system. I’m taking note of the reading material. Thank you.
Also, wasn’t there one with Robert Murphy recently?
Dear Professor Casey,
I read the talk you posted a couple times and find your position most agreeable. Sorry I didn’t comment sooner.
Dear Professor Casey,
Thank you for your input. I printed out your talk so that I can read it throughout the day.
PS I love the book idea!
Interesting. Thank you. I’m looking forward to a Q & A, hopefully in the near future, with you and Bob Murphy–perhaps Manish, too. That would be great, but it would probably have to run an extra half hour to an hour. Thanks again.
I guess I just don’t see how Bitcoin can become money unless the dollar was to collapse in which case the exchange rate up until that time defines its value and it goes from there…Does that even make sense? Something like it piggy-backing on the regression theory for the dollar having been a commodity at one time…
The question is, I guess, how do we transition to real money that isn’t lent or spent into existence–what will happen to debt and debtors/creditors? I believe Rothbard introduced a way of transitioning that had to do with finding the current dollar/gold ratio of which the government is in possession, supplying the banks with the corresponding gold amounts for 100% reserves…so that the government doesn’t own the money anymore–of course, FDIC and fiat legal tender would be eliminated. Perhaps it is in one of the links but I understand Joe’s concern–all the solutions seem paradoxical. Why do so many people believe that we have to have credit that is issued out of nothing? Why do people believe it is the only way to grow or sustain life? Living beneath your means worked for centuries, did it not–for growth and wealth accumulation? Now borrowing above the economy’s means seems to be the only way…and paying off debt by borrowing more through a fiat system…
Well then. Thanks for the clarification.
I think I remember something about American debt to Englishmen in England for the financing of the Revolutionary War. Why would England allow people to lend to America to fight against England? Especially, when it has been suggested that it was, indeed, England’s Parliament–not so much the King–with what America was in conflict. It just seems like, if you follow the money, even today, wars are ridiculous beyond the fact that they are so destructive. Do soldiers think they are fighting for their country? or fighting for the ability to borrow from their enemy and have to pay them back after the war is done? I could be looking at this all wrong but it’s something that has nagged me for some time. Were people imprisoned for lending to the enemy–aiding and abetting? I suppose it all could have remained secret so not to harm the brokers but it just doesn’t sound right to me. What am I missing or not understanding?
Owning oneself and Property rights: In general, for me, the notion of rights, liberties and property come to a wall with me when all land, as property, is owned and the people who do not own land are subjected to the landowners even if he finds an acceptable relationship. I don’t think I’ll ever really reconcile this. It is a paradox of life in my estimation.
I suppose one would argue that producing for a paycheck is the same idea. But, I don’t know, ultimately you have the option to fulfill that arrangement–unlike slavery.
Also, my concern is with the notion that if we can be put up for sale by ourselves, then does it follow that our debts can be adjudicated by the prescribed abdication of ourselves to our lender? Or should the lender just have to suffer the loss by his trust in one’s ability and willingness to pay him back? Of course, secured loans, would be reasonable in this case (if one cannot pay one back in the contracted period of time, a piece of property would serve to fulfill the contract). But, not oneself–this just strikes me as the line between property and commerce and what it means to be human. Like when people say that we are born with rights–I’d say that we were born with the dignity that precludes the gifting or selling of oneself. I do not equate this with the gifting or selling of what one produces–because that is the product of his labor and not his labor itself. Does that make sense to you?