Comments for Paul McKeever

Comment on In 5 sentences: What is Objectivism, and how does it differ from libertarianism? by James Peterson

James Peterson — Wed, 29 Jan 2014 15:25:59 +0000

Objectivism is that idea resulting from thinking about that which is; or that which can be, sensually known to exist. In other words: Objectivism is based on ones sensual observations and the experiences resulting from the same. Since this is the case; then, objectivism is applicable (it applies) to everyone who has ever lived, everyone who is now living, and everyone who will ever live at any time in the future.

Iibertanism is that idea based on what a proper form of government is. In other words: Ilbertainsm is a governmentally focused idea where Objectivism is an objectively focused idea. Since this is the case then it cannot be said they are in anyway compatable ideas.

Comment on The Interest Myth Exploded by Canabbaia

Canabbaia — Tue, 21 Jan 2014 18:43:04 +0000

In a somewhat more elaborate model of my own (OBaNoCa, which stands for: “One Bank, No Cash”) I have shown that Mr. McKeevers conclusions are correct:
You do NOT need extra money in an economic system to pay back a credit with interest.
(Also, in my model the money disappears at the end, which is, of course, somewhat more like the real economy out there.)

The text (scroll down for the English version!) is available in my blog “Canabbaia”: http://beltwild.blogspot.de/2014/01/das-ebakeba-modell-von-geldschopfung.html

Comment on The Interest Myth Exploded by Canabbaia

Canabbaia — Tue, 14 Jan 2014 13:58:30 +0000

Being a latecomer (from Germany) to this debate, my status is similar to the one Peter Young has described above: A non-economist trying (for more than a decade now) to increase my economic literacy,

I don’t think kthat your model can actually prove anything. But if I’d agree with your claim, I’d come to the very opposite conclusion of yours.

Funny it went unnoticed for such a long time, what Steven discovered in November 2011: “You also showed in the example how inflation kicks in.”
However, he derives no further reasonings from his discovery.

“Inflation” means two things:

1) That you have a discrepancy between nominal and real interest rates. Actually, in your model, you’ve robbed “B” (which, I suppose, stands for “banker” als well as for “baker”) of 20,20 USD: 20 which he somehow started out with, and 0,20 of his 2,- nominal profit (interest). Normally, he should end up having 22,- USD, but all he is left with is 1,80 USD. So inflation has really taken a toll on him. While M has been the profiteer.

2) However, of greater importance in the context of what you’re trying to prove (namely that one can redeem a 20,- USD debt PLUS INTEREST with a money supply of only that very sane 20,- principal), are the meanings of “inflation” for a real economy: Processing an equal amount of transactions within the same time period requires a higher money supply as the price level rises.
It doesn’t show up in your model, but whenever economic agents raise the prices, with everything else remaining equal, you do actually need more money.

Like I said: I’m not inferring any conclusions from this fact other than that your model does NOT hold what it promises.

Comment on Run from the Rahn Curve by Dan King

Dan King — Sat, 04 Jan 2014 02:16:06 +0000

You are turning Rahn curve into something it was not.

Most libertarians and classical liberals do not support “Macro Economics of Aggregates” as it assumes a State Central Planning monopoly power exists.

What Rahn did – was use global economic aggregate data from the world economies and measure the aggregates used by Keynesian masses to gather empirical trending data on GDP/GNP growth rates vs the comparable proportional structures.

Others use an accounting method of structural/functional finance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sectoral_Financial_Balances_in_U.S._Economy.png

What you will find is a trend where maximum financial measured growth and expansion in “REAL” vs Nominal Terms in per capital – comes from smaller Governments.

Each Country was different as you put forth – but the general TREND showed greater benefits of “capital goods” and financial distribution of wealth based on smaller government. In fact the problem with finding whether even lower ratios provided better growth rates did not exist because such countries did not exist with a modern economy.

Comment on A Capitalist's Guide to Ontario's Budget by Bob Patrick

Bob Patrick — Thu, 05 Dec 2013 00:07:25 +0000

If health care and education were defunded, we wouldn’t need income tax. I like sales tax because they leave you in control. You don’t have to beg some politician for some tax cut. Just by controlling your spending, you can give yourself a tax cut whenever you want!

Alan Keyes is a genius! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXHWFu4oGDU

Comment on Right to work laws: a leftist assault on capitalism by Simon O'Riordan

Simon O'Riordan — Thu, 26 Sep 2013 15:54:19 +0000

Sounds like clear, original work. At the risk of being patronising, nice one. After all the true value is in the expression of self. When that is actually good too, that’s a validation.

Comment on Neither conservative, nor liberal, nor libertarian: The "objective" label in electoral politics by Doug Thom

Doug Thom — Mon, 16 Sep 2013 01:52:13 +0000

I had been coming to a similar conclusion and I really appreciate the explanation. My own contemplation on this came when I was reading several, and responding to some, posts about people who have various non-Objectivist viewpoints but support the party. I was responding that, as long as you understand the concept of equal protection of everybody’s rights then what you do on your own time really isn’t that much of a concern. Indeed, it is the support of such a party that makes what you do on your own time that much more valuable and rewarding.

Thank you, Paul.

Comment on Are you a redian? by Mike Greaves

Mike Greaves — Fri, 19 Jul 2013 00:35:06 +0000

Nice parable Paul. Didn’t notice it earlier.

I’ve often wanted to crash the LSS while wearing a Nazi uniform, and tell them that *just like them*, I hated communism, and was opposed to foolish U.S. military adventurism!

Mike

Comment on Indifference is not respect by Simon O'Riordan

Simon O'Riordan — Tue, 28 May 2013 14:55:28 +0000

I respect people even though I despise their beliefs. As long as those beliefs don’t harm me.

Comment on Ontario Student Pride, Initiation Rituals, and Big Mother (a.k.a., Premier Kathleen Wynne) by MadCat

MadCat — Tue, 26 Mar 2013 13:31:02 +0000

Thanks Paul, well-said. Trying to explain engineering traditions to outraged people who don’t take a minute to a) ask a participant what was going on and why b) put the events on youtube in context was proving very difficult.