Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

John McVey

Patron
  • Content Count

    802
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by John McVey

  1. That would never pass muster in Australia, just from the labour-law aspect alone. There are rules for the determination of what is a genuine contractor relationship and what is in economic substance an employment relationship pretending not to be. Look for similar rules in the US - I'd be very surprised if they didn't exist. JJM
  2. The point of Dr Reisman's model was to use it as a base from which to develop an understanding of elements, allowing one to expand it from there, one element at a time. Even as it is, without expanding it, one of the things it shows is that capitalism has (in Dr R's words) 'natural springs to profitability,' because when people are free the mathematics of the situation necessarily generates accounting profits in the aggregate, which when tied with the material world upon which accounting figures are based this has to mean physical profits as well. There are only two ways aggregate accounting p
  3. Found it. I think this link should work. If not, it is (at time of writing) the fourth entry to be found on the link I gave previously. JJM
  4. Boris: what you really need to do is get ahold of George Reisman's "Capitalism" and read chapters 12 to 18, because this covers in extensive detail precisely what you are struggling to understand (for a snapshot, see figure 16-2 on page 732). The clincher is chapter 16 (from whence that snapshot is taken), which discusses his Net Consumption Net Investment theory. The short answer is that you missed also the consumer spending that comes from dividends distributed to equity investors. They are NOT an expense, but the profits from prior years' efforts that sNerd is trying to tell you to consi
  5. Welcome to the October 6, 2011 edition of Objectivist Round-Up, number 221. Kate Yoak presents Preschool due dilligence: naps posted at Parenting is..., saying, "After first despairing when I learned about the forced naps while visiting LePort school, I learned that this issue is not cut and dry. Today my daughter attends a school where that is not an issue." Carl Svanberg presents Elizabeth Warren's Assault on Justice posted at The Cold Voice of Reason, saying, "Enjoy!" John Drake presents GTD Habits posted at Try Reason!, saying, "Its the habits, not the technology that
  6. Continuing to look at metaphysics, he are my observations and inductive reconstruction of the Law of Causality. Context The context for this is recognition of the three axioms for their content - <a href="http://jjmcvey.blogspot.com/2011/03/oti-post-2-existence-exists.html">existence exists, consciousness is conscious, and all existents are of definite natures - and the fact that they are axioms. This is implicit in the cognitive activity of a baby within moments of his first conscious state, and needs to be explicitly stated for students of philosophy. Basic meaning The Law of C
  7. Financial barriers to entry will be a non-issue under laissez-faire, and to an extent already ARE a non-issue today. If you can prove that you have an idea for a bette product or a more efficient way of making an existing product then you can get all the funding you need from the financial sector. Billions of dollars worth of finance can be and ARE arranged in just months. This is precisely what happened in the early-mid 80's, and for which the Old Guard in the corporate world and the unions hated Michael Milken with a passion. Laws were passed to try to prevent this happening again (takeovers
  8. Of course *palm-forehead-smack*! I just realised - leftists look at the world of business and think it is a larger version of their tiresomely cliche` view of the schoolyard as seen in movies: brainless jocks at the top of the pecking order hoarding all the resources for their own interests, always bashing down the weaker but smarter kids, teachers/politicians dealing with insufficient funding unless they work in relation to the jocks' interests, etc etc etc. Heck, there's even at least one whiny song I know of explicitly about it - Simple Plan's "High School never ends". Update: second *pa
  9. I think it important to distinguish between individual instances of causal sequences and a causal connection as an abstraction, just as one distinguishes between individual entities and concepts for entities as abstractions. Induction for causality (IIRC) is not simply the identification of individual causal sequences, but recognising that the individual sequences one observes are instances of universals: all S does P under conditions X. It is not that individual event B happened to follow individual stimulus A, but that A causes B is a timeless principle of cause-and-effect that can recur aga
  10. I take it that the two share the same fundamental root in measurement omission and the unit perspective. Concept formation applies this to entities to form classes of entities, whereas induction applies this to actions of entities to form classes of causal connections applicable to the classes of entities so observed acting. This indicates two things to me: first, that while measurement-omission is crucial to both, concept-formation has the primacy (just as Identity is hierarchically superior to Causality), and second, that after a short while the two must proceed together, often in lock
  11. This is fascinating - and telling... The cynical idea that religion and socialism are the only two alternatives. The fact is that one cannot establish a philosophic positive by demolishing a negative. Commentary like this shows that atheism alone is nowhere near enough to establish liberty - without reason and egoism being proudly promoted as essential parts of the secularisation of society the sense-of-life of religion - not to mention the false alternative of dogmatism versus skepticism - will continue to poison the ethical and political codes even even alleged athiests, and the conseque
  12. A question for various segments of alleged atheists (they know who they are): If you consider yourself truly to be atheist, why do speak and act as though emotions were some magical connection to an infallible source of truth and goodness that reason is impudent if it dares question? Don't say I am not looking at you: all those who posit subjectivism - of either the individual or social variety - are as guilty as sin in this regard. Emotions are essential for human life, without which life is neither worth living nor even capable of being lived. But emotions are not tools of cognition
  13. Anything the connects any one existent with another, be that between subatomic particles or galactic superclusters or anything else in between. This includes causal relationships (gamma-ray converts to a positron-electron pair under certain conditions) or numerical relationships (ten miles is 52,800 lots of a simple measure designated as the foot) or spatial relationships (the cat is on the mat) or tempral relationships (the cat was previously on my lap), or whatever relationship exists in reality. JJM
  14. A long time ago (circa 1996) I thought up an analogy in reasoning to the mathematical methodology of simultaneous equations. I eventually dropped it, however, because I thought it was too rationalistic (plus because I was being ridiculed for it - though somewhat deservedly at the time, too, I must add). I now realise that I was definitely on to something important back then and that I was wrong to drop it entirely. What I had in mind back then was quite simple: if one knew the relationship between A and B, and one knew the relationship between A and C, where for instance A was oneself (ie o
  15. This continues and concludes my response to Doug, as per Max’s request. The full demand-notes variant of FRB by legal means So far we have large quantities of short-dated credit-notes being issued by professional financial houses with solid credit ratings. They trade at a small discount when in bulk, mostly just for interest with only a tiny part for credit-risk. For example, at a 4%pa rate a $100 note repayable in three months would trade at $99.02 and go up as the days passed. For smaller denominations, a lot of the time most people wouldn’t even bother with a discount. Trade both at d
  16. Commenter MadMax asked me if I could respond to a post by Doug Reich about Fractional Reserve Banking. The topicality of that topic is a bit more 'perishable' than econ method, so I decided the latter can wait and I spent what time I had this past week on making that response. Besides, it also ties in with some on-going email (and now tardy) discussions I've been having with a few people and they all have the same issue that is at fault with Doug's post. I hope that this will help clear up a few things in that regard. Also, note that I am not here actually to defend FRB. Other than when the
  17. This entire series on econ method from here on is a very truncated version of my own thoughts regarding induction and validation of various principles important to economics. It is the due concretisation of my post about proper economic method and my rejection of the exclusive use of deduction in determination of economic laws. This post is not about showing a worked out theory of induction. Rather, it is simply a demonstration of the sort of work in conceptualisation and induction that the economist ought properly be performing to generate and validate economic laws. I leave the full disco
  18. Here are some more thoughts I am working on. It's going to need more research, of course, but after much thought, reading, and integration, this is what I have come up with so far (in rough dot-point form) as to the methodology of the economic science: - identify the nature of value, the nature of man, and the nature of society - working from those, and observing key phenomena, identify the context of economics - use that context to identify instances and characteristics of critical economic entities - working with more observations and reasoning, continue to identify and refine valid ec
  19. Previous writing on FRB Revisited: Part One Part Two Part Three First up, I did not think I was going to be original in the details. I got the two core elements of my own opinions from Bawerk and Mises, which along with other discussions of theory and history (eg Salsman) I integrated into my own thoughts. I did NOT get any of my thoughts from Rothbard. Any correspondence of mine with his will lie in the common reference to Mises plus clear thinking (to the extent possible to Rothbard), not of me reading Rothbard. Moreover, the modern debates have been formally raging for two centuries.
  20. The principle of protecting individual rights is achieved in the concrete by actually protecting the rights of individuals. The police are obliged to protect every individuals' rights with favour to nobody. The Pastor was fully entitled to do as he thought fit with his own property. That action, in itself, was not a threat to anyone. The only threats to others arose from the reaction by barbarians. A more reasonable (but still inadequate) first response is to hold that they are the ones who we'd initially say should be billed because without their actions there'd be no cause for the police
  21. That's absolutely disgusting. It is saying in some of the most clear terms in decades that you and your product are the property of the state. The "technical difficulties" mentioned in the article are dancing around that fact while helping to legitimise it. If this is put in place, GET THE HELL OUT OF THE UK. I'm glad my parents emigrated in 1979, and I will never move back. JJM
  22. Another new version of my Australian Constitution, in a new location that I hope is more stable. I'm slowly making commentary on contents in my blog. JJM
×
×
  • Create New...