The Contradictions of a Conservative

The good, the bad, and the ugly in Rick Perry's Fed Up

Editor's Note: This column is reprinted with permission of the Washington Examiner. Click here to read it at that site.

Last week, Ezra Klein, star liberal blogger for The Washington Post, enthused that "Rick Perry's book is good. Really."

Unlike most campaign books, Klein reported, Fed Up! Our Fight to Save America from Washington is "a book about Rick Perry's ideas. And his big idea is that most everything the federal government does is unconstitutional."

That sounded like chicken soup for my frosty libertarian soul, so I got a copy and dug right in.

I won't go as far as Klein—to say the book is "good" smacks of "the soft bigotry of low expectations," as Perry's fellow ex-cheerleader and former Texas governor George W. Bush once put it. If Barry Goldwater's The Conscience of a Conservative was Merle Haggard, Fed Up! is strictly Lee Greenwood.

Still, Perry's book is perhaps the most radical manifesto from a top-tier presidential candidate since Goldwater's 1960 tome—and some of the ideas it contains are very good indeed.

It's clear from Fed Up! that the guy with a degree in animal science from Texas A&M understands the Constitution better than Barack Obama, former president of the Harvard Law Review.

The book explains clearly how overbroad interpretations of the Constitution's Commerce and General Welfare clauses have led to a bloated federal government that's consuming the nation's future.

Fed Up! also reflects a solid appreciation of how federalism allows people of diverse viewpoints to live under one national government. As Perry puts it, "if you don't like medicinal marijuana and gay marriage, don't move to California."

Alas, Perry has already showed Mitt Romney-style flexibility on federalism, supporting a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. And, as The Wall Street Journal reports, "Perry Is Suddenly Less 'Fed Up' Over Social Security."

On Thursday, his spokesman protested that the book wasn't meant to reflect Perry's current views on the program.

In Fed Up! itself, Perry complains that most of the spending reductions in the '90s came about because Republicans didn't fight President Clinton's military cuts hard enough—and makes clear that, as president, not only would he take military spending—more than 20 percent of the budget—"off the table," he'd fight to increase spending.

Perry's also "fed up" that, under ObamaCare, "seniors are expected to see major Medicare cuts," and appalled that an Obama official suggested that the government could deny access to treatments that are " 'so expensive that our taxpayers have better use for those funds.' " "Shouldn't your doctor make that decision?" Perry asks.

There are legitimate constitutional and policy-based objections to ObamaCare's mechanisms for cost control. But when the taxpayer has to foot the bill and the cost is bankrupting the country, the answer to Perry's question can't be categorically "yes."

In the book's closing chapter, Perry envisions America after 15 years of conservative reform: "I see a nation where deficits are a thing of the past"—a pretty utopian goal even if Perry were willing to leave military spending and grandma's Medicare "on the table."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • sarcasmic||

    "The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics."
    -Thomas Sowell

  • Joe M||

    Excellent quote! Adding that to my permanent list.

  • ||

    That's a horrible quote. Scarcity is a political concept, not an economic one.

    There's no such thing as scarcity. It's a lack of buying power from which some or many suffer.

    There is one, true, invariant law for economics -- the Law of Prices.

    The Law of Prices holds that the winning bids of demand in the face of supply set the price. Learn this law and you get nearly the whole of economics.

  • sunny black||

    Right...I hate it when the store is out of widgets. Damned politicians and their political concepts. I have my money! Where are the damned widgets???

  • ||

    Except it doesn't work that way in the Science of Profits, one of the great sciences of Economics.

    If there are no widgets, it's not because the bogus, non-existent concept of scarcity has caused such, even when you have buying power, it's because no one could bring forth widgets to market profitably.

    It amazes always how stupid people charge headstrong in the public arena to show their world their idiocy about all things economics.

    And even pandering to your idiotic scenario, your store caters to poor dolts like you who don't have buying power to buy upscale widgets at For Richer People Only Mart.

    R C Dean had it right on 7.15.11 @ 12:36PM



    We all know market failure occurs when goods and services are not delivered to everyone who wants them, regardless of ability to pay.

    The market failed to give everybody everything. Ergo, it failed.

    Isn't that how this works?

  • sarcasmic||

    If there was no such thing as scarcity, there would be no such thing as prices.
    Scarcity is what causes the bidding. There isn't enough for everyone who wants it (scarcity), so bidding commences. Price then determines who gets the goods.
    If there was no scarcity there would be no need to bid, and no prices.

    The first rule of politics is to ignore scarcity, ignore prices, and tell people that everyone can live at the expense of everyone else (Bastiat).

  • ||

    It's want alone that causes bidding. Demand comes from the desire to possess something else. It has nothing to do with the non-existent concept of scarcity.

    Winning bids in the face of supply decides who gets what as I stated already -- the Law of Prices.

    Without wealth there is no buying power and without buying power there is no exchange.

    Exchange has nothing to do with the fake concept of scarcity.

    Economics is all matters of man regarding his wealth. Wealth is anything that has exchangeability.

    Economics is not the "science of scarcity" as morons parrot when they're trained by neo-Keynesian Ph.Duhs.

  • sarcasmic||

    Scarcity is a lack of supply.
    Just as dark is an absence of light, cold is an absence of heat, and justice is an absence of injustice.

    Without wealth there is no buying power and without buying power there is no exchange.

    Where does wealth come from?
    Wealth comes from production of value. That means creating supply. Supply comes first.
    How do you trade if you do not produce?
    How do you accumulate wealth if you don't trade?

    Supply comes first.

  • ||

    There's no such thing as "production of value" as you say. You sound like a Marxist.

    That idiot Marx accepted the fallacy put forth by Ritardo Ricardo and Smith later accepted by Marx's followers as the Labor Theory of Value, which should be said the Theory of Labor Value.

    Value arises only from the ratio of one thing swapped for another thing. When one of two things in exchange that gets traded is money, we give value another name. We call it price.

    I've already stated that production comes first. If you didn't see so, blame Reason.com for its threaded message board.

    Surplus production second and then exchange, which turns things of surplus production into wealth.

    People produce in surplus only when it is profitable to do so, that is, when they can cover their cost of production. Such persons shall call for others to marshal resources only to the extent that demand -- want for their surplus -- exists and they want the wealth offered in exchange.

  • sarcasmic||

    Demand that lacks supply creates scarcity.
    There is no such thing as surplus as long as there is demand.
    Surplus is supply that lacks demand. You sit on a surplus because you can't sell it. Surplus is the opposite of scarcity.

    Why bother to produce something if there is no void (scarcity) to fill?

    Scarcity is a vacuum. Not to be confused with the machine that your mom uses to clean your carpet, but as in a lack of something.

    Demand without supply.

  • ||

    Bastiat had it oh so wrong.

    Politicians do not ignore prices and they don't ignore the non-existent concept of scarcity.

    Politicians confiscate buying power from some and dole out to the many. They attempt to control prices through regulation.

    Everyone ought to know that power derives from consent of the bribed. After all, government is mafia with better public relations.

    You ought to quote me or at least paraphrase me and ignore Bastiat.

  • sarcasmic||

    Now you're just acting like a fool.

  • ||

    Act like you, sarcasmic? That would be a no.

    Yet, you're amusing, though not nearly as amusing as Old Mexican.

    Authentic Libertarians like me get economics.

    Liberals such as yourself and many who frequent Reason.com don't get economics at all.

  • sarcasmic||

    Seen and unseen.

    Darkness is not seen for it is a lack of light.
    Cold is not seen for it is a lack of heat.
    Justice is not seen for it is a lack of injustice.

    Either you cannot see the unseen, or you are a fucking idiot troll.

    But then again I could be insulting idiot trolls.

  • cynical||

    Since you don't even comprehend that prices require scarcity (how much do you pay for air?), that's pretty hilarious.

  • ||

    For I could devise a one-of-a-kind thing-a-ma-bob and advertise it for purchase and sale.

    And some could come to kick the tires and if they fail to bid on it, or even if some do, but I fail to accept their bids -- their revealed buying power -- my one-of-a-kind thing-a-ma-bob of "scarcity" doesn't get exchanged and thus at once all see it is worth exactly zero, nothing, nada, hence no price arises.

    Economics. How does that work again?

  • ||

    Scarcity is not a non-existent concept or else you couldn't be talking about it; it existing, at least as a concept, is sort of a pre-requisite for discussing it.

    When you're talking in purely abstract terms all the forumlas about "you can't produce this for what I want to pay for it" can work out nicely, but in practice there are in fact real limits to the availability of things, and that's what scarcity is, by definition.

    For example, there is exactly one Mona Lisa in the world. I may want a Mona Lisa, but another one CAN'T be produced - that's scarcity.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    I suppose you COULD have it, if you had enough purchasing power. I think that is where he is going. How that is in any way useful to analyze economic situations is beyond me.

  • ||

    That was covered elsewhere. Scarcity is a bogus concept, a false concept.

    It has nothing to do with authentic economics.

    A Mona Lisa is rare. It isn't scarce. You lack the buying power to buy the one that exists. That's your problem.

    Economics is all matters of man regarding his wealth. Wealth is anything that has exchangeability.

    Exchange happens when one person transfers to another person the right of claim for possession of something, be that thing chattel, a finished work from the mind or a promise to pay in a future.

  • CE||

    If there were no scarcity, you could just walk around and pick up whatever you wanted from the Giant Pile of Free Stuff. So your Law of Prices wouldn't matter, and everyone would have unlimited wealth. Scarcity comes first.

  • ||

    Production comes first. Surplus production second and then exchange, which turns things of surplus production into wealth.

    The fake concept of scarcity has nothing to do with.

    Economics. How does that work again?

  • mark||

    I hate being that dick that posts the dictionary definition for something, but you kinda opened the door.
    scarce   [skairs] adjective, scarc·er, scarc·est, adverb
    adjective
    1.
    insufficient to satisfy the need or demand; not abundant: Meat and butter were scarce during the war.
    2.
    seldom met with; rare: a scarce book

    so, a Mona Lisa is scarce, because it is rare, because they mean the same goddam thing. I applaud your effort for trying to sound smart, but you failed. miserably.

    scarcity and demand drive prices. that's why they don't make a hundred million Ferrari's. That's why gold price is rising. You can't print gold. It's scarce.

    not that difficult of a concept. try to keep up with the rest of the class.

  • sarcasmic||

    Scarcity is the lack of supply. Without demand it is pretty meaningless, but it still exists.
    If you create a one of a kind item and there is no demand, than the scarcity of it doesn't much matter.
    But if you create a one of a kind item for which there is a demand, then the price will reflect its scarcity.
    If it no longer becomes one of a kind, if someone starts making knock offs, if it becomes less scarce, then the price will go down.

    Scarcity is the lack of something.

  • ||

    The faux concept of scarcity is you bitching and whining because you didn't get your way; that you're an inferior human who cannot muster up things demanded by others because you lack skills or intellect and thus you do not produce anything that others want.

    And thus you lack buying power to compete with the winning bidders who outbid you for the things produced whereby the producers can cover their costs and live to produce another day.

    Good luck with your false, daft beliefs about scarcity -- a socialist concept drilled into your mind, which you accepted willingly. It owns you. Socialist thought owns you. Socialists own you.

  • sarcasmic||

    troll

  • Tony||

    I don't get it. So everything is infinite in supply, if you just apply thought hard enough?

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    I realize I am a bit slow, but IF scarcity is defined as "there is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it" THEN how is that a non-existent concept?

  • ||

    OK. The concept exists, but it's a false one. And for the slower ones of the group, I could have phrased it as such. So thanks.

    Doesn't everyone want everything they can imagine, infinitely?

    Scarcity had nothing to do with authentic economics.

    It's a political concept (a political economy one) devised to justify confiscation and redistribution of wealth.

    The bogus concept of scarcity relies upon the Politics of Jealousy -- They have, you don't. Keep us in power and we shall give to you.

    That is not economics. That's politics.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Doesn't everyone want everything they can imagine, infinitely?

    Yes. And...? I feel like this is the crux of where you are going, but it is incomplete.

  • ||

    The earth seems to be a superabundant planet with more than enough resources for every human alive during the course of their lifetimes.

    Merely because many want everything handed to them without giving what is requisite in return, which is what defines greed -- the want to get something without giving anything, that does not mean the fake concept of scarcity is real.

    In the end, wealth exchanges for wealth. Men and women must produce things. For exchange to happen, men and women must want enough to give up what they possess.

    Because some don't produce enough of the things wanted by others, they lack buying power. Yet, one would be deceived to believe that a lack of buying power means things of wealth are scarce in the face of a superabundant earth well populated with enterprising, ingenious people.

    People produce in surplus only when it is profitable to do so, that is, when they can cover their cost of production. Such persons shall call for others to marshal resources only to the extent that demand -- want for their surplus -- exists and they want the wealth offered in exchange.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    well, then I am with sarcasmic: if there were no such thing as scarcity, there would be no such thing as prices. The earth is not "superabundant" in computers, but the time and labor required to process all of the various materials and assemble them into a computer is scarce. What you are forgetting is that time is not "superabundant".

  • ||

    Too bad, Rev. Blue Moon. You've chosen the wrong side of this debate and you'll continue to both wallow in ignorance about all things economics and you'll continue to think with a mind indoctrinated by neo-Keynesians inculcated with false beliefs about the fake concept of scarcity.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Thanks for that enlightening and cogent rejoinder, asshole.

  • ||

    The earth currently is incapable of producing the amount of food necessary to feed its current population. This is not economics - there is literally not enought energy coming to the planet from the sun to produce enough food to feed all the people who are alive right now, and tens of thousands starve to death every day because of this.

    Can you define "superabundant?"

  • CE||

    Since we use only a small portion of the energy coming from the sun each each day, your hypothesized systemic inability to feed the multitudes seems a tad hyperbolic.

  • ||

    In all fairness, this is coming from something a community college biology teacher told me 20 years ago, but the main point was that there is in fact actual finitude in the world and, hence, scarcity.

  • Borlaag||

    "The earth currently is incapable of producing the amount of food necessary to feed its current population".

    It would be capable if we would stop using all that corn to make ethanol.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Al Wayswright,

    Yet, one would be deceived to believe that a lack of buying power means things of wealth are scarce in the face of a superabundant earth well populated with enterprising, ingenious people.


    You're just another idiot who confuses "scarcity" with "quantity."

    "Scarcity" means "subject to opportunity cost" or "subject to choice." If you have to choose between two alternatives, then both are scarce for YOU, e.g. deciding between going to McDonalds or Burger King. You may go to McDonalds first and Burger King later, but you cannot be at both places at the very same time. By the same token, the price for a Big Mac is not merely an indicator of how many Big Macs are there in the world, it is an indicator of the choice made by many for Big Macs over other options. Since Big Macs cannot be possessed and consumed by two or many people at the same time, people are made to choose. That's the concept of scarcity. it matters not if Big Macs are superabundant or rare, they're still scarce.

    You, on the other hand, do not choose between going to McDonalds and breathing, or reading a book and breathing, as breathable air is NOT a scarce good in this world. It is a non-economic good.

  • ||

    You amuse, Old Mexican, again.

    You're merely a dipshit who believes, falsely, of course, that he's some Libertarian, but in actually is a guy who thinks with a neo-classical economics mind.

  • ||

    Clearly you've invented your own economic terminology, which may be clever and all, but isn't really useful for discussing things with people who don't live in the cave with you. . .

  • ||

    Clearly, you've stuck parroting the same economic jargon and false stories, which isn't clever and all, and is why you are stuck with your false beliefs, you and your friends in your circle of jerks.

    Oh, and that's how you do insult comedy.


    Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. ~ O'Brien, 1984
  • ||

    Thanks for the lesson in insult comedy. My real point was that if you really are looking to enlighted us brainwashed sheep with your superior wisdom, doing so with a bunch of made-up terms that you've only ever discussed with yourself is not the way to do it.

    The reason no one here understands what you are talking about is that you are using your own personal terminology in ways that no one else is used to. Some of us may be vaguely interested and ask what you mean, but you simply continue to babble and insult people for no clear reason.

    Somehow I doubt this will get through to you.

    Human interaction - how does that work again?

  • ||

    Tit-for-tat. How does it work?

    When persons began insulting me first, I responded in kind, except I did it far better.

    I'm not making up words (terms are what you find in mathematics and legal contracts). I'm using words found in all the great writing of economics.

    Clearly, you're not well-read on economics. If you've not heard of words such as bids, demand, supply, cost of production, profits, prices, choice, constrain, break even.

    Let me guess. You passed Econ 100 and Econ 101. You have heard the names and probably in this order Smith, Ricardo, Mills, Marx in a sideshow, Jevons, Menger, Bolm-Bawerk, Marshall, Piaget, Veblen, Keynes, Phillips, Edgeworth, Coase.

    Maybe you attended a shitty school and some of those names were taught to you.

    I'll school you any day you say the word on human interaction and group dynamics.

    Like any group, there is a pecking order here, some with higher status than others. When an outsider (me in this case) reveals that one of the regulars with status (sarcasmic) presented himself or herself as a fool, in true fashion, regulars circled the wagons to protect the one with status and attack the outsider.

    Group dynamics. How do those work?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Al Wayswright,

    but in actually is a guy who thinks with a neo-classical economics mind.


    Al, you would make less of a fool of yourself if you actually took some time to learn the terms you fling around like chimps fling shit. You have NO idea of what you talk about, and end up looking extremely foolish.

    Again, you confuse "scarcity" with "quantity" or with "shortages" which are different concepts.

  • ||

    You continue to amuse Old Mexican. You are my little marionette and me, I am your puppet master.

    My words are your strings. I pull and you dance. Look at you go!

    HA HA HA

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: White Imbecile,

    Yeah, I got you made.

  • ||

    "You continue to amuse Old Mexican. You are my little marionette and me, I am your puppet master.

    My words are your strings. I pull and you dance. Look at you go!"

    If arguing on the internet for the sake of getting someone to argue with you is something you're proud of, you have failed in life.
    Now go build a model airplane like a good unemployed 40 year-old.

  • sarcasmic||

    Model airplanes cost money which presumably an unemployed 40 year-old does not have.

    Then again he can always go upstairs and borrow the money from Mom.

  • ||

    But not tonight. It's meatloaf night.

  • ||

    You're the saddest one here, Sy. You're such a toady and you revealed this about yourself to the group.

    Look at you as you act like a dick-suck for Old Mexican, seeking his favor in hopes of raising your status merely by attacking an outsider -- me.

    HA HA HA

    You're a sad, puny human, Sy.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Scarcity had nothing to do with authentic economics.

    So an infinite number of people can see TSO live this winter? The fact that there are a scarce number of seats for their shows in, say, Dallas, has nothing to do with the economics of the situation? That idea seems... flawed.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    I think he has a point of some kind, but either he is not explaining it very well or I am dumb.

  • ||

    I agree. Your idea seems flawed because it is.

    There aren't a scarce number of seats. There are an exact number of seats being offered at a specific price set by the winning bidders who can pay the price.

    Often, concert seats get priced too low because promoters lack knowing what the true demand is going to be.

    That's why scalpers come in. Scalpers are entrepreneurs who see ahead what is the closer-to-market price for a thing. They buy underpriced tickets and sell them to the winning bidders who have the requisite buying power.

    As to your silly, flawed rhetorical question designed to position your argument, theoretically an infinite number could see whoever TSO is merely by providing a live broadcast.

  • ||

    If only there were some term for that particular limitation in the number of available seats that causes them to require more buying power to acquire. . .

  • ||

    What limit?

    It is buying power that constrains choice. Scarcity has nothing to do with it.

    Take two women, one with $200,000 and one with only $15,000 in the market for a new car.

    The women with $200,000 has many choices before her, from BMWs and Audis to Nissans and even Chryslers. In fact, she can buy from nearly every car manufactured today that would not be classed as a supercar and she could buy any of few supercars! This cougar has amazing buying power.

    The woman with $15,000 has few choices. She can buy only a handful cars like a Honda Fit or maybe a Ford Focus. This poor woman has little buying power.

    58,264,344 new cars were manufactured in 2010. That’s many choices, the opposite of scarcity! However, the $15,000 woman faces few choices.

    Any right-minded thinker at once sees that it us buying power that constrains choice and not scarcity.

    Economics. How does that work again?

  • ||

    How can you seriously ask "what limit?" Do more seats magically appear in the arena as more people with buying power show up?

    Scarcity is a real economic concept - it's why you can charge people for seats in an arena but you can't charge people for air.

    It seems to me like what you are really arguing is that politicians exaggerate scarcity in order to offer themselves as providers when there is in fact more abundance than they are willing to let on.

    There may be less actual scarcity in the world than politicians would have us believe, but this does not mean that "scarcity" is not an economic concept. It simply is one, the same way "momentum" is a concept in physics.

  • ||

    Scarcity is a real political concept. Yet, scarcity is a bogus, false concept is economics.

    See above.

  • ||

    Again. At this point, since my time is valuable (not scarce), I am going to cut and paste and keep doing so until truth sinks into your mind.

    For I could devise a one-of-a-kind thing-a-ma-bob and advertise it for purchase and sale.

    And some could come to kick the tires and if they fail to bid on it, or even if some do, but I fail to accept their bids -- their revealed buying power -- my one-of-a-kind thing-a-ma-bob of "scarcity" doesn't get exchanged and thus at once all see it is worth exactly zero, nothing, nada, hence no price arises.

    A Mona Lisa is rare. It isn't scarce. You lack the buying power to buy the one that exists.

    Economics. How does that work again?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Alwayswrong,

    Again. At this point, since my time is valuable (not scarce), I am going to cut and paste and keep doing so until truth sinks into your mind.


    The fact that your time is valuable does not invalidate the fact that it is scarce. If you have to choose what to do with your time, well sorry Al, but your time IS scarce.

    A Mona Lisa is rare. It isn't scarce. You lack the buying power to buy the one that exists.


    You're confusing terms again. A Mona Lisa IS scarce as it is an economic good (rivalrous and exclusive); if you possess it, nobody else does.

    Economics. How does that work again?


    You should learn, because you're pretty clueless. Worse, you're arrogant and an asshole.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Al Wayswright,

    It is buying power that constrains choice. Scarcity has nothing to do with it.


    Yes, it does. "Buying" is actually exchanging one good for another good of higher value. Since this implies choosing between alternatives, that implies scarcity.

    The women with $200,000 has many choices before her, from BMWs and Audis to Nissans and even Chryslers[...] The woman with $15,000 has few choices.


    But you're confusing the concept of "scarcity" with "purchasing power." They're not the same.

    "Purchasing Power" relates to the value scale of the buyer and the seller. A seller may value his goods higher than the goods the buyer can offer, in which case the seller will not be willing to make the exchange. That would be the case of the woman holding the $15,000 and the seller of BMWs, but that does not mean that scarcity does not exist: the woman that's holding $200,000 and the woman that's holding $15,000 are still subordinated to choice between competing alternatives - that means scarcity.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Take two women, one with $200,000 and one with only $15,000 in the market for a new car.

    Take 500 women, each with $500,000 and in the market for a new Murciélago, 450 of which (for example) are made each year. No matter how much buying power they have, they can't all get a new Murciélago. Because of scarcity.

  • ||

    If all 500 women each with $500,000 and in the market for a new Murciélago bid $500k each, Lamborghini isn't going to sell.

    Some of those 500 shall borrow from others and the winning bids are going to be higher than $500k.

    Only 450 Murciélagos get made by Lamborghini because they can only make that many profitably. Any more and their return to investment might not cover their cost of production or they can find alternative uses that return to capital higher.

    The fake concept of scarcity has nothing to do with it.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Alwayswrong,

    58,264,344 new cars were manufactured in 2010. That's many choices, the opposite of scarcity!


    They're not opposite concepts, fool. Again, you confuse "scarcity" with "quantity."

    However, the $15,000 woman faces few choices.


    That's not true: She faces as many choices as the woman with $200,000 if the value scale for the $200,000 woman includes only expensive cars and the $15,000 includes only cheap cars. The woman with $200,000 has the choice to purchase a BMW or an AUDI or a Mercedes; the woman with $15,000 can buy a $15,000.00 car or two $7,500 used cars or three $5,000.00 used cars. She has as many choices of cars as she wants and potentially have MORE cars in her posession than the woman holding $200,000.00. How MANY cars she will buy depends on the marginal value (in her view) of each additional car and her opportunity costs.

    But again, you're confusing terms just to show that the world is unfair or that politics play a role in determining access to goods. That may be so in some cases, especially where price controls and regulation are involved but these things have nothing to do with the concept of scarcity: You're being a fool.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    There aren't a scarce number of seats.

    I believe you misunderstand the physical layout of the American Airlines Center.

    As to your silly, flawed rhetorical question designed to position your argument, theoretically an infinite number could see whoever TSO is merely by providing a live broadcast.

    C'mon, man, a supposed economics guru arguing that a televised concert is an equivalent item to a live one? You have to do better than that.

    They buy underpriced tickets and sell them to the winning bidders who have the requisite buying power.

    If there's no scarcity, of what relevance is buying power?

  • ||

    The band cannot produce and earn enough income to cover their cost of production for an arena with more seats. And performing in an arena with less seats without enough persons stepping forth with even more buying power, the band could not cover their cost of production.

    And that's economics. The fake concept of scarcity has nothing to do with it. Scarcity is a political concept and not an economic one.

    The Science of Profit is far too tricky for most to wrap their minds around. That's why they become workers or welfare collectees.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Alwayswrong,

    Scarcity is a political concept and not an economic one.


    You're confusing terms again. You're like those creationists that confuse the colloquial usage of the word "theory" with the scientific meaning. In this case, you confuse the colloquial way the term "scarcity" is used by some with the real economic concept. That can only mean you're ignorant; not noticing it means you're a fool; showcasing both with such gusto means you're also stupid.

  • Hate Potion Number Nine||

    Either I'm hallucinating or I'm agreeing with you, OM. Either way, far out...

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Al Wayswright,

    That's a horrible quote. Scarcity is a political concept, not an economic one.


    No, it is an economic concept.

    It's a lack of buying power from which some or many suffer.


    Please don't try so hard to showcase your total ignorance of economics. "Scarcity" simply means "subject to opportunity cost." All economic goods are SCARCE by definition, including YOUR TIME.

  • ||

    You amuse Old Mexican. Mere words sent you off into rage that you needed to ad hom. Look at you go!

    You don't get economics at all, dimwit.

    Scarcity is a political concept, but never an economics one.

    See above.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Al Wayswright,

    You don't get economics at all, dimwit.


    I beg to differ, Al. Unless you can tell me you can be at many places at the same time, then your time is SCARCE as you are made to CHOOSE between options. That has NOTHING to do with politics.

    The person showcasing his ignorance is you, not me.

    http://mises.org/journals/scholar/scarcity.pdf

  • Al Wayspwnd||

    U MAD BRO? LOLOLOL

  • ||

    Old-minded Mexican.

    Mises was a piss-poor, 10th rate, faux economist. He was like you, except an academic.

    Scarcity is the least to worry about.

    Austrian School of Neoclassical Economics is flawed as all schools of Neoclassical Economics are. All schools of Neoclassical Economics base their doctrines on two things: [1] pseudoscience psychology [2] Smithian, Ricardian and Millian fallacies, of which there are numerous.

    The Austrian School of Neoclassical Economics rests on two major false beliefs: marginal utility and time preference. Both beliefs arise from faulty pseudoscience psychology never proven scientifically and thus must be rejected by all.

    I shall now quote myself at length:

    Scarcity is chimera. Scarcity is a socialist concept to justify political action — confiscation of output and redistribution to those of favored groups. Those who parrot the false belief that economics has anything to do with scarcity have accepted the rhetoric of socialists, have become indoctrinated into socialist thinking and have let false beliefs get inculcated into their minds.

    The one, true, great, invariant law of economics — the Law of Prices — holds that the winning bids of demand in the face of supply set the price.

    The highest bidders win the day for whatever is being offered. It’s through superior buying power that highest bidders win the day. In short, it is a lack of cash and credit that makes losers go without. Excuse makers express their false beliefs and blame the false concept of scarcity rather than their skill at winning economic quantities of purchasing (cash and credit) to gain what they want.

    On Capital
    ————
    To help many come to see at long last truth, two kinds of capitalists exist, money capitalists and material capitalists, although the distinction is for illustrative purposes.

    Material capitalists use material capital (products that yield intermediate goods) to produce what are products that either are material capital to another or products of final goods.

    Money capital arises because earning rent on money capital, that is earning interest, obviates the need for money capitalists (bankers, lenders) to guess what material capital producers need and thus efficiently reduces the need for them to be Nostradamus.

    In short, money capitalists have swapped producing material capital (differentiated capital) for producing money capital (undifferentiated capital). No longer do money capitalists need to guess what material capital material capitalists demand. Nor do money capitalists need to take raw material, convert such into production goods and then produce final capital (products) themselves; and thus, money capitalists need not guess what goods yielding material products get demanded as the expressed preferences of consumers.

    On Interest
    ————-
    Austrians, like all others of the the neoclassical school of economics, suffer from false beliefs as expressed in their prejudice to see interest as some unique entity in economics. Yet, interest is not.

    For as de Fontenay adroitly stated, “The theory of revenue must be the same for all classes of human production.”

    Interest has nothing to do with “time preference.” The whole “time preference” theory of Mises amounts to foolery. The belief that others must be paid a high rate of interest for use of their funds to induce them to “give up present consumption” is false.

    Interest is like any income — rent, futures, annuities, wages, copyrights. Interest arises from the recurring purchase and sale of capital in exchange for rights of action. Interest has nothing to do with being compensated for putting off future consumption.

    Money as mere medium of exchange is the convenient expression of the value of the material capital (production merchandise) bought. Interest gets paid upon production merchandise bought in the end.

    Those who become money capitalists do so because it is their preference to not become material capitalists. Time has nothing to do with it.

    Claiming “…economic sense if the interest rate had fallen in a free market, thereby signaling that people wish to defer more consumption by saving more of their current income.” amounts to foolery.

    As long as ever more profit can get earned on arrangement of material capital but a lack of material capitalists exist to gain that profit, to induce borrowers to rent (borrow) the medium of exchange and to become material capitalists who convert such borrowed money capital into their own material capital preferences, money capitalists as lenders must reduce their asking rent rate (aka interest rate, aka price of money).

    In free markets, the interest rate falls because money capitalists must induce others to switch from what they are doing now and become material capitalists. In short, money capitalists are betting that the addition of material capitalists can discover the right combo of material capital to produce goods-yielding products such that the effect of the Law of Prices allows for sales to exceed costs, that is for profits to arise, and from profit, that interest (rent) can get paid. For without profit, no rent, and hence, no interest can get paid.

    On the Cluster of Errors and More Time Preference Foolery
    ———————————————————————–
    Higgs goes further to express false belief when he writes, “But if people have not changed their preferences in this way and continue to prefer present consumption relatively as much as they did previously, then businesses will make mistakes by choosing these kinds of investment projects, which are, in effect, attempts to anticipate future demands that will never eventuate.”

    Murray Rothbard himself said, “… why is there a sudden general cluster of business errors? This is the first question for any cycle theory. Business activity moves along nicely with most business firms making handsome profits. Suddenly, without warning, conditions change and the bulk of business firms are experiencing losses; they are suddenly revealed to have made grievous errors in forecasting.”

    Rothbard then goes on to blame bankers who “print new money” and in doing so, these nefarious bankers trick otherwise astute businessmen into believing that the “supply of saved funds for investment has increased” and thus such fooled otherwise astute businessmen have accepted a wrong belief about time preferences.

    Yet, such a convoluted conspiracy theory story of treachery and trickery need not get told. As Keynesians and Monetarists foolishly believe that somehow money is different, so too, do Austrians foolishly believe that somehow interest is different.

    Interest is not some magical thing outside of economics. Interest paid is a kind of income, the same as rent for land or wages for labor.

    As long as profits can get earned by all material capitalists in the game and money capital remains idle, money capitalists must induce ever less clever persons who lack business acumen to become businessmen. Inducement comes from lowering interest rates so that these less clever persons believe they can gain profit from their jubilant expectation of sales that never materialize precisely because they lack skills needed to make stuff that turn shoppers into customers.

    In the end, without profit, no interest can get paid to bankers and other assorted money capitalists.

    For it should be clear to all at once, that if no surplus crop exists from land, no rent can get paid on that land. Even if surplus crop harvest were to exist, if no demand exists to acquire that surplus, no rent can get paid.

    It is only when demand exists to take up the surplus of crops that rent can arise. Rent is the share of profits the farmer distributes to the landlord.

    As ever greater demand exists for a surplus of crops, the price of such surplus rises. Thus, it pays to enlarge the area of cultivation.

    Rent near the demand for the surplus rises as the cost to bring such surplus is lower than cost to bring additional surplus from further out. The further out one goes, the higher the increase in the cost of production and the profit, from which rent gets paid decreases until at last no profit exists from which to pay rent.

    And so is it the same with interest. The smartest businessmen with most business acumen are first to enter into production. As demand rises for their products, it pays to enlarge the area of production. The further out one goes by inducing ever dumber persons into trying their hands at business, the profit from which interest can get paid decreases until no profit exists from which to pay any interest.

    And again, I quote myself here:

    Money lent at interest (money capital) is done so because that is the product the money capitalist sells.

    The money capitalist concludes that rather than buy material capital and attempt to make something for which demand might be insufficient to yield profit and thus fail to earn so-called (material) capital interest, often said the natural rate of interest on (material) capital; the money capitalists decides to sell money capital and buy a right of action from another material capitalist.

    It’s that simple. No one needs an elaborate theory of time preference like something from Jean-Claude Van Damme in Time Cop.

    The money capitalist buys the right to claim a part of the profits, if any exist, from the material capitalist. The material capitalist engages in production of things in hopes of earning sales that exceed the Cost of Production suitably sufficient to distribute a share of profit to the money capitalist, that is, to to pay rent (interest) on money capital.

    When Sally Secretary does the above by buying shares of APPL for her 401-k rather than rolling up her sleeves and going into the smart phone manufacturing business herself, we think nothing of it. Yet, when foolish neoclassical economists, in this case, the Austrians think on this matter, they devise an elaborate time preference theory.

    Rothbard became hung up on his great “Cluster of Errors” because he looked at it from the wrong perspective — the perspective of entrepreneurs as material capitalists.

    The only cluster of errors arises when money capitalists bet on ever dumber (risker) persons who fancy themselves as material capitalist entrepreneurs. One need only reflect on the Dot Com to Dot Bomb era to see this is so.

    To bring into production, marginal-producing, scrub soil that sits ever further way from the marketplace of demand, demand must grow high enough subject to the Law of Prices to make such inferior soil earn profit to pay rent.

    So too is it with humans. To bring scrub humans into production as material capitalists, money capitalists must induce them by lowering interest on money (the rent rate on money). Otherwise, such scrub humans cannot earn profit and no rent (interest) can get paid.


    And here:

    To believe in scarcity is to disavow the one, true, and only law in the whole of economics — the Law of Prices — and thus to reject economics.

    Again, the Law of Prices holds that the winning bids of demand in the face of supply set the price.

    If only one thingamabob exists on the whole of the earth and someone is willing to pay a trillion dollars while everyone else is willing to pay something less than a trillion, that only one thingamabob exists doesn’t make it scarce. The rest of those who would like to possess it simply haven’t the means for the winning bid.

    Those who claim such is scarce have conflated scarce with what is rare.

    Those who cry scarcity whine for their lack of skills to earn money to buy stuff for which they have greedy desire to get, but for which they lack character to earn.

    For it is not long that material capitalist can sustain production if her or his costs of production exceed sales earned. For in short order, such a producer gets put to ruin.

    Only when the winning bids of demand in the face of the supply set a price suitably sufficient that sales meet the cost of production (in the absence of rent and interest owed) can the material capitalist live to produce another day.

    Thus all should come to see at once the great working of the Law of Prices as the one true law that girds under the whole of economics.


    And here:

    “Time preference” HA HA HA. Pull another leg. http://www.yankees2000.com/y2k.....787091.jpg

    Without proper entrepreneurial experience, Mises and Rothbard lacked referential experience to understand how capital works. Worse, Mises swallowed hard on a giant waste of time, the work of Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk.

    “The time will come when people will realize that Böhm-Bawerk’s theory is one of the greatest errors ever committed.”
    ~ Carl Menger, founder of the Austrian School of Neoclassical Economics

    Ockham’s razor cuts to shreds Böhm-Bawerk-Misesian-Rothbardian Time Preference mumbo jumbo.

    Interest arises solely because the money capitalist buys the right to claim a part of the profits, if any exist, from the material capitalist in preference to becoming a material capitalist and attempting to produce something in hopes of profit.

  • Kroneborge||

    Thank you for this bullshit threat. Now I know I won't need to pay attention to anything you say, as your grasp of both economics and the common use of words is exeedenly poor.

    It always amazes me when people try and use language to confuse an issue instead of clarify it.

  • ||

    You amuse Old Mexican. Mere words sent you off into rage that you needed to ad hom. Look at you go!

    You don't get economics at all, dimwit.

    Scarcity is a political concept, but never an economics one.

    See above.

  • Ballpunch||

    Get to the point, Al. The point is the TIME CUBE, which makes ALL POSSIBLE OUTCOMES EQUAL and EXISTS EVERYWHERE IN SPACE-TIME AT ONCE between the forces of the ILLUMINATI and the KNIGHTS TEMPLAR and their secret mission to STEAL YOUR COMIC BOOK COLLECTION from your apartment in your MOM'S BASEMENT.

    SCARCITY =! TIME CUBE

  • Cruz||

    I was under the impression Scarcity was an Economic Concept while Shortage was a political one. There is no shortage of picasso paintings for instance.

  • hazeeran||

    Why Sowell rocks.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Agreed. It's just too bad he had to discuss non-economic topics.

    (Although even I did like much of Vision of the Anointed).

  • pmains ||

    The way in which his anti-immigration views conflict wit his insights from "Ethnic America " is particularly maddening.

  • hazeeran||

    Agreed. His endorsement of Pawlenty was ... not something I valued.

    (A Conflict of visions is good imho.)

  • BakedPenguin||

    Pawlenty? Jeebus, I'm glad I missed that.

  • Scarcity is artificial||

    Free from market obsessions of scarcity, hunters' economic propensities may be more consistently predicated on abundance than our own.

    ~Marshall Sahlins
    Distinguished Service Professor of Anthropology Emeritus.
    University of Chicago
    The Original Affluent Society
    Stone Age Economics

    http://www.primitivism.com/original-affluent.htm

    When Europeans first arrived on the land that would eventually become the United States they found a land truly blessed by the divine. Their accounts speak of an abundance few would recognize today.

    [...]

    Such mind-blowing abundance was the accumulated gift of hundreds, if not thousands, of generations, each one living to give back more than they took. It’s true they had an impact on their ecology, but impacts can be positive or negative. To justify the clearcut moonscapes Weyerhaeuser leaves behind with the horticultural techniques of Native groups that cultivated such abundance is nothing short of obscene.

    ~Jason Godesky
    The Savages are Truly Noble
    10 May 2007
    http://rewild.info/anthropik/2.....uly-noble/

  • Old Mexican||

    White Imbecile, here? Again?

    Will wonders never cease...

  • Mo||

    And predictably, his communications director has already disowned it and says it is not predictive of his campaign or views on on governance.

  • Gojira (formerly Jim)||

    Indicating that even this *mild* reformism is still far too radical for the average voter.

    We have met the enemy, and he is us.

  • ||

    Gojimra

  • Gojira||

    There were like 3 people named "Jim" posting on here, and one of them seems to be a leftist douche, so it was time for a change.

  • Michael Bolton||

    Why should you change? He's the one who sucks.

  • squishua||

    It doesn't look like Perry is willing to tell Americans that hard truth. That's too bad: America could use a candidate with the conscience of a conservative and the courage of his convictions.


    Oh, if only such person was running! Hmm.....

  • ||

    Funny how some people have a blind spot for the only principled candidate who has been consistent for decades and has never voted for any government action that is not constitutional.

  • Barack Obama||

    I'm trying to get my record out there. If only the right wing media machine would capitulate.

  • Concerned Citizen||

    He may not pass the libertarian purity test, but he'd be a hell of a lot better than the marxist we have now. When Maobama took office I figured he'd prove once and for all that marxism doesn't work, and he hasn't disappointed me.

  • Ike Turner||

    I knew you'd come back to me, baby! No matter how badly I treat you, you ALWAYS come back!

  • BakedPenguin||

    No way, no how. RP, GJ, or it's LP for me, baby.

  • hazeeran||

    Me too. Attitudes like the one above are a reason among others why we're where we are now in the first place.

  • BakedPenguin||

    The "Ike Turner" comment is spot on. If you continue to vote for big government schmucks just because they occasionally make small government noises, don't be surprised when you wind up with big government, and a "C'mon, this time it'll be different" pitch one more time.

  • Jersey Patriot||

    It's a pretty weird Marxist who's in love with Wall Street.

  • Koan||

    Though I am nauseated by his nakedly political genuflection to the Christoids, I think he's probably the best electable Republican in the field. I'll take him over Romneybot or Bachmann-Christian-Overdrive any day.

  • Kroneborge||

    +1

    Although, I will probably still vote for Paul in the primary if he makes it to CA. Plus, I already donated of course.

  • CE||

    Ron Paul's electability is statistically equal to Perry's. See Gallup. And Harris. And Rasmussen.

    So why not vote for the real deal?

  • KPres||

    Lets be realistic. A large reason for those poll. numbers is because the left hasnt directed the full force of their political machine against him. They actually support him against other Republicans, and that would change instant he became the Republican nominee.

  • Realist||

    "It doesn't look like Perry is willing to tell Americans that hard truth. That's too bad: America could use a candidate with the conscience of a conservative and the courage of his convictions."

    We have that candidate; his name is Ron Paul.

  • Clueless CNN Anchor||

    Haha...okay realist, I didn't get that last part, but if you think of anyone or see Sarah Palin, let me know, okay? Okay... It's the bottom of the hour...

  • ||

    With enough scientific advancement scarcity may become a thing of the past. We aren't there yet though.

  • ||

    With enough scientific advancement scarcity may become a thing of the past. We aren't there yet though.

  • Kroneborge||

    I think this is probaly impossible. If for no other reason then people would become very concerned with positional goods, which would probably mean hand crafted, or personal services.

    For example, even if you could get all the coke you wanted, how could everyone always get all the hookers they wanted?

  • BakedPenguin||

    Especially if they could get all the Viagra they wanted...

  • Zuo||

    Sexbots, foolio. And they are BETTER, so much better, than nasty aging, shitting, hairy, foul smelling, saggy skinned, sickly, real human women.

  • spencer||

    Rick Perry is a power hungry fool. He is NOT the candidate that you want to represent you - and you DON'T want him to win.

  • Lady Macbeth||

    Power hungry fool?? Where??? In politics? Out damed Perry! Out!

  • DLM||

    This is all that the current system produces. You should be used to it by now.

  • Koan||

    Ok spencer, tell us how Rick Perry is a power hungry fool and how that makes him different from any other politician?

  • Kroneborge||

    +1

  • Spencer||

    The second part, not much different from most other politicians.

    The first part- the governorship in texas is a figurehead position with visible power, but limited actual power. He has used it to mandate a proprietary vaccine on the citizens of Texas (and admitted mistake) in order to make money for friends and further his power with fingers in pies. He also changes positions with the political tide. He wants posistions of power, not so he can change things or maintain things- he wants them because he wants POWER- or at least wants to be viewed as having power.

    He is useless when it comes to governing and lucked into Texas and our (relatively) great economy.

  • Zuo||

    Rick Perry is hellbent on gaining power for power's sake.

    Anti-Perry trolls keep telling us the Lt. Gov is the TRUE powerful position in Texas.

    Rick Perry was Lt. Gov.

    Rick Perry became the Gov of Texas, a position that doesn't have any power, according to our helpful anti-Perry trolls.

    :. Does not compute?

  • DLM||

    While it would be nice to get someone that doesn't want power, it's not going to happen. What matters is what they do with it.

  • Koan||

    Damn squirrels . . . ignore that question mark.

  • ||

    Perry’s book is still perhaps the most radical manifesto from a top-tier presidential candidate

    Nice to see Reason keeps its cosmo cred current by delegitimizing Ron Paul.

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    Ya. Reason just got out-libertarianed by Jon Stewart.

  • CE||

    Let's see who has more individual donors in the third quarter before we separate the top tier from the middle tier, shall we?

  • Bigger Brother||

    Look I know seems that Reason© is becoming more and more of GOP ass kissing but its not. Do you REALLy want individual liberty? I don't think so... Let us tell you what is good for you. (Hint: big military, drug laws, and hating fags is good for you)

  • Koan||

    Um, is there an active drinking game on this board? If so, I think Bigger Brother has just entitled all of us to drink!

  • Chacabra||

    yes, it's called Tuesday afternoon.

  • speakingmute||

    Odd how this article omits the parts where Perry proposes that Congress can override the Supreme Court without amending the constitution or how he wants US Senators and Representatives appointed by state assemblies.

  • T||

    On the first one, he's right. Congress sets the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. To wit:

    the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

    And on the second one, I think only Senators, as was the practice until the 17th Amendment in 1913.

  • DLM||

    And on the second one, I think only Senators, as was the practice until the 17th Amendment in 1913.

    This gave us a little more of a three-way power arrangement: Feds - States - Public. The Senate represented the state governments. The House represented the public. Now the states are more just an extension of the feds. I'm not sure it would make much of a difference it would make, but I very strongly doubt it would make anything worse.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    I would advocate going back to the pre-17th way of doing things. I would also like to add a house that can only repeal laws.

    Has there ever been a tricameral legislature? I looked it up one time but didn't get much in the way of results.

  • neat||

  • Old Mexican||

    It's clear from Fed Up! that the guy with a degree in animal science from Texas A&M understands the Constitution better than Barack Obama, former president of the Harvard Law Review.


    Unfortunately, that doesn't tell me anything, since the "former president of the Harvard Law Review" hardly made a single contribution to the review, plus there's the lingering suspicion that he was give the job because he was black.

    And if one goes by the answers given by the Pillsbury Dough Boy-in-drag to the senate during her S.C. confirmation hearing, I have a nagging feeling that NOBODY in Harvard know jack-shit about the Cosntitution, or have decided to forget the document exists from their collective minds.

  • hazeeran||

    To take not the credentialed at their word is impious in the credentialist age. What will comfort the schmucks whose degrees are unsubstantial?

  • seguin||

    Jack Daniels.

  • squishua||

    +750ml

  • hazeeran||

    Touche.

  • ||

    "Still, Perry's book is perhaps the most radical manifesto from a top-tier presidential candidate since Goldwater's 1960 tome—and some of the ideas it contains are very good indeed."

    Interesting take on Perry's book. Makes me think of a real manifesto by another Top Tier Republican Candidate from Texas.

    From the Amazon page for "The Revolution: A Manifesto" by Ron Paul - "The real truth about Liberty. This book takes a wrecking ball to the political establishment. Senator Goldwater would have loved it -- it's The Conscience of a Conservative for the 21st century." -- Barry Goldwater, Jr., former member of Congress

    Goldwater Jr. endorses Paul's book and also endorses Ron Paul for President over and above Rick Perry.

    Another book by Ron Paul "Liberty Defined" is an essential guide for ANY and ALL Americans regardless of political affiliation if they are interested in Personal Liberty.

    Ron Paul is the real deal and THE candidate that Reason writers/editors should be pushing (besides Gary Johnson).

  • CE||

    The top tier (polling in double digits, raised millions of dollars):

    Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Rick Perry, Michelle Bachman

    The middle tier (not polling in double digits, raised millions of dollars):

    Newt Gingrich, Herm Cain, Rick Santorum, Jon Huntsman

    The bottom tier:

    Gary Johnson, Thad McCotter, Fred Karger, Roy Moore, Buddy Roemer, Allen West

    Source:

    http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/candidates.phtml

  • CE||

    Actually, too generous to Santorum. As of June 30th, he had only raised $500K. So, bottom tier.

  • ||

    Today, the spot price of an ounce of gold closed at $1,830.20.

    Gold sold for $257 an ounce in 1999. Since the price run up, multi-millions of dollars have been invested in gold mining production.

    Dummies, clueless to all things economics, would say that's because gold is scarce!

    Yet, I could go into the foothills of California and find an ounce of gold lying on the ground by a stream bed were I so lucky.

    And I could take that ounce of gold and sell it for $1,830.20.

    Why? Is it because gold is scarce? HA HA HA No. Only dummies accept that fallacy.

    The price of gold is what it is because of the winning bids of demand in the face of the supply of gold have set the price.

    It is the willingness to own gold and nothing more than gives rise to it's demand and it is the willingness for others to buy money and sell their gold that gives rise to its exchangeability and thus converts that gold into wealth.

    Economics. How does it work?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Al Wayswrong,

    Dummies, clueless to all things economics, would say that's because gold is scarce!


    That's possible, clueless. Gold IS scarce, as any other economic good. That is the definition of an economic good.

    Why? Is it because gold is scarce? HA HA HA No. Only dummies accept that fallacy.


    Ha ha ha yes. Gold is scarce whether the price people are willing to pay is $277.00 or $2,000.00. The market clearing price is set up by bidding, but gold is scarce by definition, just like water, land or your own time.

    The price of gold is what it is because of the winning bids of demand in the face of the supply of gold have set the price.


    That does not mean gold is not scarce. You confuse "scarcity" with "quantity."

    We have us another White Imbecile in our midst, if it ain't the same guy.

  • ||

    +1

  • Ballpunch||

    TIME CUBE! How does it work? INFINITELY!

  • ||

    Economics. How does it work?

    By balancing supply and demand through pricing?

    Assuming demand for X exists, then if the supply of X is functionally infinite, price would be zero, yes?

    The existence of a price for X shows that the supply of X is not functionally infinite. How does this not mean that X is scarce, that is, in insufficient or short supply?

    The fact that someone with sufficient buying power can acquire X means only that it is not scarce for them. The fact that you need sufficient buying power to acquire X means that it is scarce in general.

  • ||

    The existence of a price for X shows the winning bidders of demand in the face of that supply set that price.

    The supply exists as it is subject to producers ability to break even and not get put to ruin because they cannot cover their costs.

    Wishful thinking has nothing to do with economics. Merely because people wish they had stuff and supply doesn't arise suitably large enough such that prices can fall to near zero doesn't mean that things are scarce. It means that the wishful thinkers lack suitable buying power.

    They don't make enough stuff that other people want. Hence, they don't produce a surplus of things wanted by others that when exchanged become wealth and the source of their buying power.

    Scarcity is a political concept that leverages the Politics of Jealousy.

    Far too many struggle with this because they don't get the Science of Wealth and especially, they don't get the Science of Profit. That's why they don't get economics.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    . Merely because people wish they had stuff and supply doesn't arise suitably large enough such that prices can fall to near zero doesn't mean that things are scarce.

    Yes it does, you grade-A asshole. That's the everfucking definition, and your insistence that economists are saying something different is flat wrong.

  • ScottyB||

    Anyone who won't cut Medicare or defense is not fiscally serious. period.

  • DLM||

    Anyone who won't cut Medicare or defense is not fiscally serious.

    If you want someone who is "fiscally serious" while simultaneously running for public office with an expectation of winning, you are going to be waiting a very long time.

  • ||

    I've found my candidate! Warmongering theocrats are OK as long as they're all about upper-class tax cuts!

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    No....

    Libertarians are generally anti-Perry. Ron Paul and Gary Johnson are the only Republican candidates I'm interested in, and that's pretty typical. Paul is religious, Johnson not so much; Paul is anti-war, Johnson is anti-war. Both want to balance the budget--which may mean no tax cut and even tax increases on the rich.

    Please tell me this was a spoof. Sad thing is, it probably wasn't.

  • yemek tarifleri||

    thank you very much executives like you, I really like your blog very clean and reliable link to a web site trying to get the ban I hope I do not eat many thanks
    Web sites with the music here is actually fun, chat, friendship, bi kind of people that I'm trying to create an ideal environment for fusion with each other and chat environments, and sexual issues, as well as food, drink, and even my own social networking areas, such as creating a single goal is to serve our valuable administrators hope you understand
    If you need to make

  • Tony||

    It's clear from Fed Up! that the guy with a degree in animal science from Texas A&M understands the Constitution better than Barack Obama, former president of the Harvard Law Review.

    Really? Why does it never occur to you people that if you find yourself agreeing with warmongering theocratic morons on what the constitution says, maybe you're both wrong?

    California is larger than many nations, why is it freedom to give more autonomy to states? For every state that is more free to sell cannabis there is one that is free to have more draconian drug laws.

    Why not put the pieces together and take Perry, essentially, at his word? States' rights was originally about states' ability to keep human beings as property! No guarantee there's an upside for freedom in this neoconfederate crusade.

    But then you guys don't really care about the particulars of freedom, you just hate the federal government.

  • Expat to Be||

    It is my experience that this is just another area where libertarians and conservatives collide, or why being libertarian doesn't automatically mean you're a regular at the federalist society meeting.

    There is a common belief that a large, bureaucratic, centrally controlled government will tend toward less freedom on the individual level on many issues. The tendency both left and right leaning libertarians like to see is voluntary organizations and cooperative associations of citizens filling the roles of what others think that only the government can handle.

    To the extent that libertarians are ok with government, it exists to preserve individual freedom. This is where it gets different from the "States' Rights" types, in that we believe there is a baseline of freedom and liberty guaranteed to those living within this country. To a libertarian, this is just about the only legitimate exercise of government power.

    One of the interesting topics to follow where this difference in ideology played out with its practical effect was the recent cases involving gun bans in DC and Chicago. The libertarian position focused on issues that would open up a "can o worms" for guaranteeing all sorts of rights for the individual at the federal level, whereas conservatives and the NRA just wanted a certain class of citizens to be protected from the government coming in and saying they can't own certain types of firearms.

    At least, that's how I read it, and the reason I'm a libertarian instead of joining team red or blue.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement