tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post7213392035960190003..comments2024-03-28T17:08:15.784-07:00Comments on Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left: Michael Emmett Brady on Hayek’s Concept of UncertaintyLord Keyneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comBlogger63125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-27806134135181693152011-10-22T16:46:10.432-07:002011-10-22T16:46:10.432-07:00It is simple to demonstrate the intellectual bank...It is simple to demonstrate the intellectual bankruptcy of Paul Davidson's macroeconomic D-Z model ,which can be traced back to Sydney Weintraub and Dennis Robertson in the mid 1950's.<br />Davidson ,as well as all of his adherents at the JPKE,define the aggregate supply function,Z, to be equal to pO ,where p is an expected price and O is real output.O is a function of the variable input, N,where N=labor.The capital stock is held fixed.The production function is thus a function of the variable input, N , and a fixed input,capital.The production function simplifies to O=f(N).Under diminishing returns to labor,the first derivative, dO/dN,is >0 and the second derivative is less than 0.This curve must be a CONCAVE curve.Keynes also used the case of constant returns to labor.The first derivative is a constant and the second derivative equals 0.This curve must be an upward sloping LINEAR line.Paul Davidson's Z curve is an upward sloping CONVEX curve.This is mathematically impossible,given that N is defined on the abscissa and Z is on the ordinate.<br />Davidson's baloney-nonsense model shows only one employment -unemployment equilibrium.All other positions are disequilibriums.Keynes's theoretical exposition in chapter 20 of the GT proves mathematically that there is a set of unemployment equilibriums.This set of unemployment equilibriums includes the limiting case of the neoclassical employment equilibrium.This curve is the locus of the intersections of a set of D,aggregate demand function, and Z,aggregate supply function,functions .Keynes called the locus or set ooof these intersections the Aggregsate Supply Curve(ASC).It has nothing to do with Davidson's Z function.<br />Davidson has been trying to cover this massive error up since it was exposed by Don Patinkin,who also got his analysis wrong,in HOPE in 1989.<br />Michael Emmett BradyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-50897263349462093842011-10-19T13:24:21.746-07:002011-10-19T13:24:21.746-07:00@Blue Aurora
http://www.amazon.com/Economics-Origi...@Blue Aurora<br />http://www.amazon.com/Economics-Original-1948-Paul-Samuelson/product-reviews/0070747415/ref=cm_cr_pr_hist_5?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&filterBy=addFiveStar<br /><br />This is his review of Samuelson's original book. I didn't say that he didn't criticise Samuelson (though he does call him, after Smith and Keynes, the 3rd greatest economist ever!).<br /><br />He does think that Post-Keynesian macro is bullshit to the extreme which is what I think is relevant for this blog (which promotes Post-Keynesian macro)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-37875663596238813302011-10-19T08:26:08.763-07:002011-10-19T08:26:08.763-07:00@Anonymous: In fairness, while Brady does hold a h...@Anonymous: In fairness, while Brady does hold a high opinion of Paul A. Samuelson, he has criticised Samuelson before, both in published articles and over his posts on Amazon.com.Blue Aurorahttp://www.nationstates.net/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-37540980866192100402011-10-18T12:49:44.664-07:002011-10-18T12:49:44.664-07:00Brady also argues that Post-Keynesians are wrong a...Brady also argues that Post-Keynesians are wrong and Samuelson is right (with respect to Keynes).<br /><br />Most authors you praise Lord Keynes (especially Paul Davidson), he has buried in his reviews.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-51803025749251206022011-10-14T23:21:01.402-07:002011-10-14T23:21:01.402-07:00"Under statism, an individual citizen cannot ...<i>"Under statism, an individual citizen cannot revoke any alleged delegation to the state."</i><br /><br />This is like complaining that the state "oppresses" you because it does not let you violate your neighbour's property rights. The laws of the community are not just able to be "revoked" at will by the individual.<br /><br />Go and have a cry about it.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-83557428702207284022011-10-14T23:15:27.184-07:002011-10-14T23:15:27.184-07:00"There has not been an abandonment of high em...<i>"There has not been an abandonment of high employment policies. There has been a substantial increase in high employment policies."</i><br /><br />"There has been a substantial increase in high employment policies"?? Even though states all over the world abandoned fiscal policy as a way of maintaining high employment?<br /><br />Keep spinning your fairy tales. The sheer brazenness of your lies speaks volumes.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-30625126563545351552011-10-14T22:33:12.331-07:002011-10-14T22:33:12.331-07:00"Secondly, no individual has the right to dem...<i>"Secondly, no individual has the right to demand that others pay and solicit the same group of people they do for protection and security."</i><br /><br /><i>Only under nonsensical libertarian ethics - natural rights or Hoppe's argumentation ethic, both of which lack serious justification.</i><br /><br />But adhere to libertarian ethics on this one, because you would hold that I would not have the right to demand that you abstain from paying and soliciting the current state or any other state you choose, and instead pay and solicit the security and protection services from the people I support.<br /><br /><i>"'Free-marketism' has been substantially REDUCED over the last 30 years ..."</i><br /><br /><i>What rubbish. Obviously the mass privatisations of nationalised industry, deregulation, abandonment of high employment policies, floating of exchange rates, abolition of capital controls, attack on and severe weaking of trade unions, etc. in many countries over the past 30 years have all escaped your notice.</i><br /><br />False. There has been an increase in regulations, and an increase in financial control. Going off the gold standard in 1971 for example was an increase in the states ability to create money for itself, which is an increase in control over money and hence over the economy.<br /><br />There has not been an abandonment of high employment policies. There has been a substantial increase in high employment policies. The fact that employment is not doing what the state wants it to do does not mean that it has abandoned high employment policies. It means the government is messing the economy up to such a degree that the private sector is not able to accommodate full employment.<br /><br />The number of regulations in the Federal Register has increased multiple-fold in the last 30 years.<br /><br /><i>"In a laissez-faire, free market economy, the Federal Register and Code of Federal Regulations would have a total number of pages of ZERO."</i><br /><br /><i>Legerdemain and changing the goal posts.</i><br /><br />No, it's not changing of any goal posts. You seem to not understand what a free market actually is. You think the massively hampered economy we have is closer to laissez faire. That is nonsense.<br /><br />A free market economy is hands off. There would be no FDA, HUD, DoE, or any of the other thousand alphabet soup agencies.<br /><br /><i>Of course, no fantasy, imaginary anarcho-capitalist world has ever existed.</i><br /><br />Irrelevant. Prior to 1700 AD you could say that slave emancipation has never existed, or prior to 1800 AD you could say that women's suffrage never existed, or prior to 400 BC and Greek democracy you could say that democracy has never existed.<br /><br />All this means NOTHING about economic theory and what people are capable of if they adopt the ideas.<br /><br />History does not prove anything other than what ideas people have had in the past, and what actions people have taken in the past.<br /><br /><i>But that's not what you were arguing above: you were trying to assert the idea that "Free-marketism' has been substantially REDUCED over the last 30 years" - a different thing.</i><br /><br />It has been substantially reduced. You are just so blind to it because anything less than communism means we have primarily laissez faire. It's so bad today that little girls can't even sell lemonade on the street without the state giving expressed permission. People are getting arrested for growing their own food on their own property.<br /><br />Only a propagandist demagogue who wants to spew an agenda would claim that "free marketism" has been increased over the last 30 years.Petenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-55333680333803880612011-10-14T22:17:05.754-07:002011-10-14T22:17:05.754-07:00Argosy:
Peterian,
If word count were the measure ...Argosy:<br /><br /><i>Peterian,<br />If word count were the measure of scholarship and knowledge as well as regulation, you must be one of the greatest comment thread trolls known to man.</i><br /><br />Glad that you agree that regulations have increased, not decreased, in the last 30 years. To bad that you didn't take it well and felt obligated to engage in ad hominem.Petenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-92186554641977411842011-10-14T22:15:23.316-07:002011-10-14T22:15:23.316-07:00"No individual would ever voluntarily surrend...<i>"No individual would ever voluntarily surrender the decision-making for their own body and property, to another individual unilaterally."</i><br /><br /><i>God, have you ever lived in the real world? Ever met a couple with one partner who lets the other partner make all their important decisions for them?</i><br /><br />First, there is a huge difference between couples, and citizens and the state. Even in couples relationships, they will not surrender final authority over how much the other takes from them, or what laws to impose on them. In couples where one individual allows another to make the financial decisions, always retains ultimate authority over their own body and their own property. At any time, they can revoke this delegation of decision making.<br /><br />Under statism, an individual citizen cannot revoke any alleged delegation to the state. The state unilaterally retains authority to tax and to impose laws, whether the individual consents to it or not.<br /><br />So your analogy is total garbage<br /><br /><i>And you don't surrender "decision-making for your own body" to the state. We live in a liberal society where individual rights are in fact afforded a great degree of protection (even more so in some Western European states), so even that charge is rubbish.</i><br /><br />I never said that an individual does surrender decision making for their own body to the state. That's the whole point. The state violently imposes their rule and decision making over an individual's body and property.<br /><br />That western states do not violate as many individual rights as other states, does not mean that western states do not impose decision making to a positive degree on the individual.<br /><br />In western societies, states impose decision making on how people treat their own bodies in all sorts of ways. From food (raw milk) to drugs ("illegal" narcotics) to licensing (doctors, etc) to all other aspects of life, the state imposes authority on final decision making with the individual's body. Then there is the decision making on an individual's property, from all the regulations, and it only makes your belief absurd that the individual is not forced by the state to surrender decision making for their own bodies and property.Petenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-35959474486632821492011-10-14T21:00:46.895-07:002011-10-14T21:00:46.895-07:00"Secondly, no individual has the right to dem...<i>"Secondly, no individual has the right to demand that others pay and solicit the same group of people they do for protection and security."</i><br /><br />Only under nonsensical libertarian ethics - natural rights or Hoppe's argumentation ethic, both of which lack serious justification.<br /><br /><i>"'Free-marketism' has been substantially REDUCED over the last 30 years ..."</i><br /><br />What rubbish. Obviously the mass privatisations of nationalised industry, deregulation, abandonment of high employment policies, floating of exchange rates, abolition of capital controls, attack on and severe weaking of trade unions, etc. in many countries over the past 30 years have all escaped your notice.<br /><br /><i>"In a laissez-faire, free market economy, the Federal Register and Code of Federal Regulations would have a total number of pages of ZERO."</i><br /><br />Legerdemain and changing the goal posts. Of course, no fantasy, imaginary anarcho-capitalist world has ever existed. But that's not what you were arguing above: you were trying to assert the idea that "Free-marketism' has been substantially REDUCED over the last 30 years" - a different thing.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-723878710579200422011-10-14T18:33:35.966-07:002011-10-14T18:33:35.966-07:00The number of pages in the 2010 register for examp...<i>The number of pages in the 2010 register for example totalled 81,405 pages. The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is the regulatory equivalent of a statute book that includes only the text of existing regulations. The number of pages in the 2007 edition totalled 145,816 pages, and has since substantially increased again after to the government caused financial collapse of 2008.</i><br /><br />Peterian,<br />If word count were the measure of scholarship and knowledge as well as regulation, you must be one of the greatest comment thread trolls known to man.Argosy Jonesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-20781961125432368942011-10-14T17:40:12.698-07:002011-10-14T17:40:12.698-07:00"No individual would ever voluntarily surrend...<i>"No individual would ever voluntarily surrender the decision-making for their own body and property, to another individual unilaterally."</i><br /><br />God, have you ever lived in the real world? Ever met a couple with one partner who lets the other partner make all their important decisions for them?<br /><br />And you don't surrender "decision-making for your own body" to the state. We live in a liberal society where individual rights are in fact afforded a great degree of protection (even more so in some Western European states), so even that charge is rubbish.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-22689072520686347412011-10-14T10:53:08.385-07:002011-10-14T10:53:08.385-07:00Calgacus:
But this seems to be an argument for Ke...Calgacus:<br /><br /><i>But this seems to be an argument for Keynesian economics & policy! For you seem to be saying that just as Keynesian economics & policy was abandoned, while free-marketism was extolled and practiced (yes, not as much as you'd like, but more than before) the state became more violent.</i><br /><br />No, It's saying the exact opposite. <br /><br />"Free-marketism" has been substantially REDUCED over the last 30 years, not "extolled and practiced." What you're saying is a myth perpetuated by socialists of all stripes into making people believe that all the social problems that exists are primarily the fault of the free market.<br /><br />Nothing could be further from the truth.<br /><br />Over the last 30 years (actually it goes back much further), The Federal Register, which tallies the number of regulations, has skyrocketed in size. The number of pages in the 2010 register for example totalled 81,405 pages. The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is the regulatory equivalent of a statute book that includes only the text of existing regulations. The number of pages in the 2007 edition totalled 145,816 pages, and has since substantially increased again after to the government caused financial collapse of 2008.<br /><br />In a laissez-faire, free market economy, the Federal Register and Code of Federal Regulations would have a total number of pages of ZERO.<br /><br />We are living in a society that is literally going the exact opposite direction you think it's going.<br /><br />Your conception of history and of current reality is literally the opposite of fact.Petenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-38532075588948630532011-10-14T08:46:07.232-07:002011-10-14T08:46:07.232-07:00Argosy:
"I can stand in judgment of all mank...Argosy:<br /><br /><i>"I can stand in judgment of all mankind because I adhere to rational principles that create a peaceful and productive society. <br />-Pete"</i><br /><br /><i>I'm gonna put that in a frame and hang it on my wall. Is there a site where I can purchase some autographed photos or T-shirts?</i><br /><br />Every individual can stand in judgment of all mankind if they adhere to rational principles that create a peaceful and productive society.<br /><br /><i>Time for a new handle-- 'pete' has jumped the shark. Are you the slightest bit aware of what you sound like? Oh my god. LOL.</i><br /><br />Judgment is an intellectual affair. EVERY individual on Earth makes an intellectual judgment on the state of mankind.<br /><br />Why are you so afraid? Why are you so afraid of thinking?<br /><br /><i>"..those who reject the state and live peaceful lives, which is the majority of people, or else taxation would not have to be backed by violence."</i><br /><br /><i>So if the mass of people accepted the state and lived violent lives, Taxes would not have to be backed by violence?</i><br /><br />There is no "the" mass of people. There is always only individuals, each with their own plans for themselves, each with their own goals.<br /><br />Some may overlap with others, some may offset with others and thus enabling an exchange.<br /><br />But the state CANNOT be "accepted by the mass of people." No individual would ever voluntarily surrender the decision-making for their own body and property, to another individual unilaterally. Only initiating violence can do it. Secondly, no individual has the right to demand that others pay and solicit the same group of people they do for protection and security.<br /><br />The state is not a natural, voluntary institution in society. It is really nothing but a criminal gang writ large.<br /><br />Without initiating violence, states are impossible to form.Petenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-58687707410110229842011-10-13T21:07:08.864-07:002011-10-13T21:07:08.864-07:00@Pete: Ever wonder why the US have been stagnating...@Pete: <i>Ever wonder why the US have been stagnating since the 1970s? It's because the US government has been increasing the amount of violence they initiate against individual Americans.<br /><br />Keynesianism is nothing but a justification for increasing state violence, in the name of ridiculously uninformed mystical and muddle headed beliefs.</i><br /><br />But this seems to be an argument for Keynesian economics & policy! For you seem to be saying that just as Keynesian economics & policy was abandoned, while free-marketism was extolled and practiced (yes, not as much as you'd like, but more than before) the state became more violent. <br /><br />I guess if the devil Keynes is out there front & center, the mighty entrepreneurs will be awake enough to resist his & others' evil works. But if they begin to get their own way, our capitalist benefactors will fall asleep & let the evil state wreak its universal malevolence.<br /><br />Lead us into temptation & deliver us from Good!Calgacushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06031818010224747000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-70485259771765560692011-10-13T20:25:37.222-07:002011-10-13T20:25:37.222-07:00Pete,
I have a question for you: are you maybe &q...Pete,<br /><br />I have a question for you: are you maybe "Waah" from reddit? Because your writing style seems similar.Hereticnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-84485262690518068342011-10-13T18:27:31.349-07:002011-10-13T18:27:31.349-07:00Thanks for the link, Clonal, but I was unable to d...Thanks for the link, Clonal, but I was unable to download the mp3 file. I was glad to find that I was able to stream the file here:<br /><br />http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/74175<br /><br />It sounds pretty good to begin with, so thanks again.Argosy Jonesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-6103807439773273042011-10-13T18:20:48.621-07:002011-10-13T18:20:48.621-07:00I can stand in judgment of all mankind because I a...<i>I can stand in judgment of all mankind because I adhere to rational principles that create a peaceful and productive society. <br />-Pete</i><br /><br />I'm gonna put that in a frame and hang it on my wall. Is there a site where I can purchase some autographed photos or T-shirts? <br /><br />Time for a new handle-- 'pete' has jumped the shark. Are you the slightest bit aware of what you sound like? Oh my god. LOL.<br /><br /><i>..those who reject the state and live peaceful lives, which is the majority of people, or else taxation would not have to be backed by violence.</i><br /><br />So if the mass of people accepted the state and lived violent lives, Taxes would not have to be backed by violence? What are you trying to say here?<br /><br /><i>"You can call me "Peterian", because that would be most accurate."</i><br />Okay, Peterian.Argosy Jonesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-50396928938345812011-10-13T14:10:08.949-07:002011-10-13T14:10:08.949-07:00Oh, and I was giving a "Pete" response, ...Oh, and I was giving a "Pete" response, not a "Rothbardian" response. Unlike you, I don't need to consider myself a member of some group before my arguments have weight. My arguments stand alone.<br /><br />I hold Rothbard to be wrong about many things, so calling me Rothbardian is false. I hold Rothbard to be wrong about who is responsible for the production of goods, the role of capitalists, among other things. I'm not Rothbardian. I do happen to agree with him on many things though.<br /><br />You can call me "Peterian", because that would be most accurate.Petenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-63985728398035610932011-10-13T14:06:40.170-07:002011-10-13T14:06:40.170-07:00So now the Rothardian repsonse is: the "resul...<i>So now the Rothardian repsonse is: the "results of interviews of more than 300 businesspeople, labor leaders, counselors of the unemployed, and business consultants in the northeastern United States during the recession of the early 1990s" mean nothing</i><br /><br />They mean nothing to this economics debate. They certainly mean something to psychologists.<br /><br /><i>and convey no important empirical evidence just because the Rothardian says so. Case closed! Let's all move on!</i><br /><br />No, it's more like people will say all sorts of things in informal interviews if someone will listen to them, but it is only through people's ACTIONS that we can know for sure. Since the context is wage rates and unemployment, the actions must be directly related to wage rates and labor, not what an unrepresented 336 people say in interviews.<br /><br />You have to provide an economics theory, not just point to what can only be called heresay.Petenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-38913018056612487212011-10-13T13:11:06.000-07:002011-10-13T13:11:06.000-07:00Interview with Nicholas Wapshott on Keynes vs Haye...Interview with Nicholas Wapshott on Keynes vs Hayek<br /><br />http://archives.kpfa.org/data/20111013-Thu1000.mp3<br /><br />starting at 6 minClonalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18290009954839887975noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-43465185781733750662011-10-13T09:23:30.895-07:002011-10-13T09:23:30.895-07:00"Their "testimonies" do not constit...<i>"Their "testimonies" do not constitute a firm foundation for what they actually DO. A worker could SAY that a pay cut would lower his morale and productivity, but that doesn't mean it WILL if he did get a pay cut."</i><br /><br />So now the Rothardian repsonse is: the "results of interviews of more than 300 businesspeople, labor leaders, counselors of the unemployed, and business consultants in the northeastern United States during the recession of the early 1990s" mean nothing and convey no important empirical evidence just because the Rothardian says so. Case closed! Let's all move on!<br /><br />http://cowles.econ.yale.edu/news/bewley/tfb_02_jse_review.htmLord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-56022810118630091072011-10-13T09:11:20.749-07:002011-10-13T09:11:20.749-07:00Argosy:
LOL. I guess all of known history is full...Argosy:<br /><br /><i>LOL. I guess all of known history is full of absolutely corrupt lives.</i><br /><br />Not for those who reject the state and live peaceful lives, which is the majority of people, or else taxation would not have to be backed by violence.<br /><br /><i>Since you're so corrupt, Pete, how can you stand in judgement of all mankind?</i><br /><br />You're corrupt, not me. You call for violence against innocent people. I don't.<br /><br />I can stand in judgment of all mankind because I adhere to rational principles that create a peaceful and productive society.<br /><br />People like you are society's destroyers.<br /><br /><i>After all, you lived your whole life in a corrupt society... it must have damaged your intellect in some way.</i><br /><br />Statism corrupts human life, but not all humans. It's the only reason there is social change. If everyone were followers like you, society wouldn't move because the followers would have nobody to follow.<br /><br /><i>Seriously, Pete, do you ever look up from man, economy and state for a glance at the world around you?</i><br /><br />I don't particularly enjoy Man, Economy and State. I think Rothbard's other works are better. For economic treatises, Capitalism by Reisman is the best, IMO.<br /><br /><i> You know, to take a break from all the axioms and look to see whether the books make sense of life as experienced outside them?</i><br /><br />Oh you mean you want to corrupt me too? LOL. As a matter of fact, I have improved my ability to understand the world to immeasurable degrees because of all the books I have read. You clearly have not read the books you choose to criticize, whereas I have. That makes me superior to you.Petenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-39231100966723761612011-10-13T09:05:56.003-07:002011-10-13T09:05:56.003-07:00TJ:
It depends on how one defines "monopoly....TJ:<br /><br />It depends on how one defines "monopoly." <br /><br />If we define it with the "weak" form, that is, merely a single seller of some good in a particular area of the world economy, then free markets can potentially create them, but they would be subjected to all the market forces of a seller in a multiple seller setting.<br /><br />If we define it with the "strong" form, that is, a government granted privilege, where the government uses violence to stop competition, then yes, the term "free market monopoly" is a contradiction.<br /><br />I used the weak form of monopoly, because LK brought up Rothbard's discussion on monopolies, and LK referred to the existence of a single seller, which I interpreted as the weak form of monopoly. Rothbard also distinguished between the two types of monopolies.<br /><br />More importantly, your knowledge of history is way off. Standard Oil was CONSTANTLY frustrated by competitors taking away their market share. It wasn't until Standard Oil succeeded in getting government protection, "for the good of society", did Standard Oil start succeeding in buying up more and more competition who were legally prevented from competing freely.<br /><br />Finally, you're totally out to lunch when you say that markets are creations of the state. That's utter garbage. Markets are the creations of freely acting individuals who trade with each other, without any controller above and without any direction from above.<br /><br />Yes, markets require institutions of private property, but private property PRECEDES the state. The state doesn't "back it up." The state VIOLATES private property. The state is society's largest institution of private property violations.<br /><br />The state cannot come into existence unless some individuals declare a territorial monopoly on security and protection, and taxation of previously existing private property owners.<br /><br />Private property is not a creation of the state. Marx was wrong.Petenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-39462244334035275392011-10-13T08:57:13.271-07:002011-10-13T08:57:13.271-07:00"As long as we're loosely on the subject ...<i>"As long as we're loosely on the subject of Hoppe, does anyone know if he ever responded to this critique by Murphy and Callahan?"</i><br /><br />Hoppe has responded to criticisms at the end of his book "The Economics and Ethics of Private Property."<br /><br />As for Murphy and Callahan's critique, Stephen Kinsella has written a scathing rebuttal here:<br /><br />http://www.anti-state.com/article.php?article_id=312Petenoreply@blogger.com