[rt]

Thank you, that makes a lot of sense and I told him this. But this didn’t bother him at all. In fact he said that since all the manual labor has been outsourced or replaced by machinery, there are now only service sector jobs, that can’t be outsourced. So when the minimum wage increases, labor costs increase but this wouldn’t hurt businesses, they would just have to raise prices and consumers would be willing to pay the higher prices (because they can’t import the service, I assume).
This was his reasoning. Is there any merit to this theory? And wouldn’t low skilled workers be hurt by the price increases as well? Thanks again!

[rt]

Thank you, I’ve been wonderinh about this for a while now.

[rt]

Thanks a lot, I guess this is what I was thinking about:
“Thus, a worker’s wage will increase if the market value of what he produces increases, even if his physical productivity doesn’t rise.”
I’m not sure about the following thiugh:
Fundamentally, for real wages to increase, a higher market value is not enough. Only capital accumulation and an increase in production can increase wages substantially over a sufficiently long period of time. And increased wages of workers that use machinery can increase wages of workers with no machinery by purchasing their products/services thanks to their higher purchasing power!
Is this correct? :

[rt]

Okay it works now, don’t know what the problem was.

[rt]

Thank you, I’ll take a look at the article.
To follow up, if entrepreneurs would pay their workers wages beneith their discounted MRP, would you consider that exploitation?

[rt]

Alright thank you! But he is credited with destroying the exploitation theory but couldn’t socialists concede BB’s point and argue that the pure entrepreneurial profit represents surplus-value which is due to exploitation?
Thus if the workers waited to get their full MRP or invested their wages, the final amount would still not amount to the difference between revenues and cost.
What is then in your opinion the best argument against the exploitation theory (in the case that marxists conceded BB’s argument).

[rt]

Okay thank you!

[rt]

Thanks a lot Dr Herbener! I think Thorsten Polleit who you probably know has recently started a kind of investment company. Applying AE to the markets etc. sounds very interesting! I’ll also contact Peter Klein as soon as I have the time! Thanks again!

[rt]

Okay so we cannot predict at this point how high interest rates would be if the Fed quit purchasing MBS and Treasuries… Well thanks again for your help!

[rt]

Thanks!
Are all interest rates in the economy somewhat brought to the same level through arbitrage?

And what would be the effect on interest rates with regards to the fact that the growth of the money supply would be slowed down?
Thank you!

[rt]

Thank you!
Could you explain what you mean by: “Given that private investors did not reassess the credit worthiness of the securities, the difference in interest rates would generate arbitrage opportunities and therefore, change interest rates on other securities.”
So the interest rates in the loanable funds market would more or less stay the same?

[rt]

Doesn’t the money supply decrease as soon as a loan is repaid? And if yes, does the money supply not stay more or less the same over a long period of time (if we assume that there’s no central bank)?

[rt]

Dr Jewell covers the agricultural revolution (that preceded the industrial revolution) and both industrial revolutions in his “Western Civilization since…” course. You might want to watch them or post the question in the forum of “Western Civilization since…” to get more precise answers from Dr Jewell.

[rt]

Wow, thanks a lot Porphyrogenitus!
“HOWEVER, my other way of approaching it is probably thus: such people often have a cognative dissonance, especially if they’re leftists. By which I mean they also tend to believe in “brave progressive dissidents speaking truth to power” and advancing The Movement. You can point out that many (most?) of his heroes were, at the time they were “standing up for social justice,” in the minority on whatever position-of-the-day they held, and by his own theory of absolutist democracy the majority would have had the right to crush them instantly, silence them, and impose their beliefs on them (I wonder if he also thinks he believes “imposing one’s beliefs on others” is wrong, at least when done by people he doesn’t agree with, however numerous they might be). Point out that it is only the protections of liberty – liberty of the minority – however feeble those protections might be, which allowed these “stalwarts” the platform they had.”

This may be the best way of arguing against a collectivist believer in democracy I’ve heard until today. I’ll think of his ideas and heroes and confront him in the days to come. If he’s somewhat consistent with the things he said before, he’d say that these heroes should have obeyed the authority but should have had the right to say their opinion…
I’ll get back to you after my next discussion with him! Thank you again

[rt]

There are different justifications for the NAP. Rothbard derives the NAP from natural law and natural rights. He explains this at lenght in the first chapters of Ethics of Liberty. But there’s the is-ought problem: We know what the nature of man is but which rights/laws ought there to be?
Hoppe and Stephan Kinsella have come up with different justifications for the NAP which are described in the articles I linked to.

[Author]

Posts