Re: Growth vs Prosperity

[John Vertegaal <vertegaa@xxxxxxxxx>]

Bill Ryan wrote:

>I propose we go through your logical chain step by
>step.  At this point it is impossible to get beyond
>step number 2 without additional information.

>-->1. Government levies taxes (economy-wide) in order
>to allow a certain portion of society, engaged in
>activities there is no market for, to benefit from
>the final output of society as a whole.<--

>At best this first assumption is incomplete.  At
>worst, it is false.  There are things that society
>can do that individuals on their own can't or
>shouldn't be expected to do--for example, provide for
>the common defense against an organized enemy.
>In principle people who are otherwise employed could
>volunteer some of their time and materials to the
>effort without money or taxes becoming involved at
>all.  There are many historical examples where that
>has worked. It demonstrates merely that this first
>axiom of yours cannot be considered to be absolute.

No, what it demonstrates is that you are trying to prove me false by
using examples that are irrelevant to the economy under consideration.
Volunteer work is not part of my economic paradigm.  We can bring it in
and convert it, just as we can bring in housework.  But if you want its
causation as an economic creation to be included in a logical system, you
first will have to come up with your own set of axioms; in terms of which
"volunteer", "their time", "and materials" are definable.
  The way it stands, you are only imparting ideological opinions, without
any logical meaning.

I have no problem with you wanting to define housework and voluntarism
as economic elements, and rejecting a paradigm that doesn't include them
as incomplete; but then go ahead and do indeed "define" them, and don't
try to mask your inability to do so, behind a discourse that is far more
incomplete than mine.


>-->2.  This imposition can have no bearing on the
>fact, derived from three basic axioms, that the sum
>total of such activities as measured in the unit of
>account self-resolves.<--

>There's no point in proceeding without having the
>hidden "three basic axioms."  You will need to list
>them for us.  Please understand that we will dispute
>the assertion that "the sum total of such activities
>as measured in the unit of account self-resolves"
>with emphasis on the self-resolution part.  So it is
>imperative that you list the axioms so we can move
>on.

I doubt there is any point in proceeding period.  After a couple of later
notes in which I pointed out the axioms, you are still clueless.
There is no association between my axioms with its correlations and your
preconceived ideas of what an economy is all about.  Either the path from
the three axioms to the (self-)resolution of point 9 in the "third way"
thesis is a logical one, or its logic is flawed.  "Economics" knowledge
is not required, it obviously is getting in the way.
  The only conclusion I can come to from your clownish search for them,
is that you must be under the impression that axioms are somehow derived
from elements of the system that one is setting out to explain in its
terms.


>Steps 3 through 6 seem to be saying that if you start
>with a given ratio of government to the private
>sector--then increasing the ratio of government to
>the private sector is inevitably inflationary.

Well, at least you got that right.


>Your step 7 seems to be saying that once the ratio of
>government to the private sector stabilizes,
>"equilibrium" at a "higher price level" will manifest
>presumably after some period of time.

First, you have to understand my concept of a dynamic equilibrium.  And
for that you have to understand the logic of going from the axioms to at
least point 10 of the "third way" thesis.  Your "economics" is getting
in the way again.


>Do you realize how close this comes to the so-called
>"Austrian" theory of the trade cycle?  Except--you
>have substituted a postulated "government-private
>sector" ratio for their "credit-savings" ratio.  But
>then again, to the Austrians, credit expansion is
>synonymous to governmental intrusion into the market.

It's funny how a little knowledge can lead one to the absurdity of the
above.  I don't know much about the Austrians, but their rejection of a
comprehensive macro and my rejection of meaningful microeconomics puts
us seemingly at opposite ends of the spectrum.


>Your thesis is not quite original, I'm afraid, or so
>it appears at this early stage of the discussion.

All based on the 'similarity' with the Austrians, no doubt.


>But we need the three axioms!

You wouldn't recognize them if you fell over them.  A discussion with you
is hopeless.


John V