tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4788085997404718759.post8639438549577775185..comments2016-11-05T09:19:37.839-07:00Comments on Wondering Aloud: My Moral Argument Part IIGreghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03139782404004492965noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4788085997404718759.post-83956327576300579952011-02-13T15:18:19.082-08:002011-02-13T15:18:19.082-08:00No Art, I've never seen you argue a value free...No Art, I've never seen you argue a value free economic decision. In fact you've very clearly argued that all our economic problems can be traced to policies which have encouraged the accumulation of private debt ( I see this as the central point of almost all your analysis, and I agree).<br /><br />Govt policies are a reflection of values so the govt has imposed its values onto us. <br /><br />One of my questions has been are these policies defendable on moral grounds? I dont think so. <br /><br />When a govt has the capacity, as ours does by virtue of our floating exchange rate fiat currency, to buy anything available for sale (and if its not available to fund the development of it) and we have all this labor available for sale (and the private market doesnt want it now), not buying it IS a moral failure, in my view. How can you leave someone, with a willingness to do something, without a living wage for over two years now. I'm flabbergasted really, that our leaders can sit there receiving over $180,000/yr from a "non productive" govt job and begrudge $320/wk UE payments or refuse to fund a $10/hr job for anyone who wants it. All because some frikken bond holders are having "increased inflation expectations" as they collect their effort free govt welfare payments.<br /><br />My son will be 22 in April and he's getting married in a month.<br /><br />Ive gotta get back to my posting here but I spend so much time looking at other folks sites.<br /><br />Found one yesterday you might find interesting "heteconomist.com"Greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03139782404004492965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4788085997404718759.post-36011653750322448902011-02-08T16:03:19.444-08:002011-02-08T16:03:19.444-08:00Hey, Greg. I sort of said this before, but I want ...Hey, Greg. I sort of said this before, but I want to reiterate: In Part One I really like the opening of paragraph two: "I'm interested in what is at the heart of these moral arguments. Finding a framework to look at validity of morality claims."<br /><br />That could be a major task. And in Part Two...<br /><br /><b>No decision is value free. If one claims something is just about money and not personal that reveals a fundamental flaw in a view that money isnt personal. Money IS personal.</b><br /><br />This reminds me of something from von Hayek (from The Road to Serfdom, chapter 7) --<br /><br /><i>So long as we can freely dispose over our income and all our possessions, economic loss will always deprive us only of what we regard as the least important of the desires we were able to satisfy. A "merely" economic loss is thus one whose effect we can still make fall on our less important needs.... Economic values are less important to us than many things precisely because in economic matters we are free to decide what to us is more, and what less, important.</i><br /><br />Economic decisions are personal decisions. Money IS personal.<br /><br />Okay, now I have a question about this excerpt from your post:<br /><b>When I hear people trying to argue that economic decisions are value free or amoral I just have to chuckle. No decision is value free.</b><br /><br />Q: Would you say I try to argue that economic decisions are value free? I don't think so. But I have to ask.<br /><br />So, how old is your son? My little guy is 29. His big brother will soon be 32. Time goes by...The Arthurianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16501331051089400601noreply@blogger.com