Who's to blame?

Originally posted by bill718
It's easy to blame others such as presidents, those in congress (or parliament) for our present situation, but in looking back over the last 30 years I've noticed that 90% of the time I have been to blame for the less than desirable things that have come my way. When my bank balance is lower than I wished, it's because I overspent, when my income was less th ...[text shortened]... erson most responsible for our present situation is staring at us when we look in the mirror. 😏

So its all YOUR fault!

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Personal relationships are "an exchange of value for value"?

Wow.

Yes, mind blowing concept for the collectivists and control freaks but I put it to you that if you're in a one-way relationship you're in either a dysfunctional relationship or a doomed relationship. I like Robert Hienliens (sp?) condition of romantic love: You're own happiness is dependent on the other person being happy.

And by value I don't just mean money, right? That doesn't need to be explained to you, right?

Originally posted by finnegan
Not one way - of course. We are social beings, not individuals, we live together and not on desert islands, we depend on each other, not on some impossible ideal of self sufficiency, we are all flawed, not models of perfection. we achieve things collectively and not alone.

Congrats on the most tired, wrung out, bbq'ed to death cliche' strawman in the history of the internet.

The 'desert island'.

I depend on someone finding value in what I produce with my hands and mind, if no-one does value what you produce with your hands and mind, huullloooo, you're not doing it right.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Congrats on the most tired, wrung out, bbq'ed to death cliche' strawman in the history of the internet.

The 'desert island'.

I depend on someone finding value in what I produce with my hands and mind, if no-one does value what you produce with your hands and mind, huullloooo, you're not doing it right.

I depend on someone finding value in what I produce

Quite so. You can be as self contained as you wish, but you will still always depend on someone else finding value in what you produce.

Originally posted by finnegan

I depend on someone finding value in what I produce

Quite so. You can be as self contained as you wish, but you will still always depend on someone else finding value in what you produce.

Yes, quite right, that's what I said.

Originally posted by JS357
So am I (OK with unequal results.) A healthy society has opportunities for success and failure. Some of the greatest successes have followed failure. The process keeps us resilient and ready for challenges, as long as we stay open to innovation.

The question is, will we as a society have a safety net that is blind to blame?

"The question is, will we as a society have a safety net that is blind to blame?"

Being totally blind to blame introduces moral hazard.

Originally posted by finnegan

I depend on someone finding value in what I produce

Quite so. You can be as self contained as you wish, but you will still always depend on someone else finding value in what you produce.

Almost correct. If only the individual finds value in his produce, that's ok as well.

Originally posted by normbenign
Almost correct. If only the individual finds value in his produce, that's ok as well.

Economic onanism? Can I sell to myself and make a decent profit? Is that taking self employment to a new level in which I am my own customer as well as my own employer? Should I pay myself a wage or take a capital gain?

Originally posted by finnegan
Economic onanism? Can I sell to myself and make a decent profit? Is that taking self employment to a new level in which I am my own customer as well as my own employer? Should I pay myself a wage or take a capital gain?

Autarky is a possible choice. It usually isn't as profitable as specialization, selling to a society of consumers, but it is a possible choice.

Originally posted by normbenign
Autarky is a possible choice. It usually isn't as profitable as specialization, selling to a society of consumers, but it is a possible choice.

Bluffing but not successfully.

Autarky is the quality of being self-sufficient. Usually the term is applied to political states or their economic systems. Autarky exists whenever an entity can survive or continue its activities without external assistance or international trade. If a self-sufficient economy also refuses all trade with the outside world then it is called a closed economy.[1] Autarky is not necessarily an economic phenomenon; for example, a military autarky would be a state that could defend itself without help from another country. Autarky can be said to be the policy of a state or other entity when it seeks to be self-sufficient as a whole, but also can be limited to a narrow field such as possession of a key raw material. For example, many countries have a policy of autarky with respect to foodstuffs[2] and water for national security reasons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autarky

Still, points for trying. An individual who successfully refuses all interaction with the outside world would be most accurately described as "dead".

Originally posted by finnegan
Bluffing but not successfully. [quote]Autarky is the quality of being self-sufficient. Usually the term is applied to political states or their economic systems. Autarky exists whenever an entity can survive or continue its activities without external assistance or international trade. If a self-sufficient economy also refuses all trade with the outside wor ...[text shortened]... lly refuses all interaction with the outside world would be most accurately described as "dead".

There is no reason that an individual couldn't be an autarky of one. He would miss out on some advantages of being social, but he could exist. If he were satisfied with that existence, they why would you wish to prevent it?

Dead is a bit over the top. He would be a hermit, a recluse, but the number of social contacts could be small, and still be mostly autarkcratic.

Originally posted by normbenign
There is no reason that an individual couldn't be an autarky of one. He would miss out on some advantages of being social, but he could exist. If he were satisfied with that existence, they why would you wish to prevent it?

Dead is a bit over the top. He would be a hermit, a recluse, but the number of social contacts could be small, and still be mostly autarkcratic.

The concept of autarky is not applicable for the reasons stated - you are just misusing the language in an absurd manner.

Saying something is not possible is not equivalent to wishing to prevent it.

Originally posted by finnegan
The concept of autarky is not applicable for the reasons stated - you are just misusing the language in an absurd manner.

Saying something is not possible is not equivalent to wishing to prevent it.

You should take the time to watch The History Channel's series "Mountain Men". I bumped into it purely by accident last night, and featured were a half dozen men who lived at the edges of any societal interactions and were indeed autarkies of one.

Mises discusses this in detail in his tome called "Socialism".

Originally posted by normbenign
Gosh darn bill. You may have hope yet. Who'lda thunk it? An advocate of personal responsibility.

Mr. Norm. I am very much an advocate of personal responsibility, and respect others who are as well. I understand the 60 hour work week, under promising and over preforming, refusing to draw a dime of public assistance even if it means taking jobs that no one else wants becuause I will not be a burden to others, what it's like to labor without pay for months in order to get a business off the ground... because I've done it! What I'm NOT an advocate of is the 1% in this country shipping hard working Americans jobs offshore, then telling the unemployed workers that it's their fault that they are unemployed. I'm NOT an advocate of reading about countless innocent children dying every year, just so some baseball cap wearing Daniel Boone wannabe insists on his right to kill a deer. What I'm NOT an advocate of is reading in the financial times as executive pay rises over 100 fold in the last 30 years, and listening to these overpaid "suits" who make 7-8 figures a year blame a group of $9.00/hr workers who've not had a raise in 2 years for a bad fiscal quarter. I'm not an advocate of is some hypocritical conservative lawmaker happily using his taxpayer supported health and dental care for himself and his family year after year, then having the gall to tell some hard working employee they are "socialists" when they ask for a few crumbs of it, what I'm NOT an advocate of is these self appointed experts here on RHP telling me that I don't know anything about business, when I am a business owner and these self appointed experts are almost all employees, who draw paychecks from people like me! And that...Mr. Norm, Mr Sasquatch, and Mr. Whodey is what I advocate. 😏

Originally posted by bill718
Mr. Norm. I am very much an advocate of personal responsibility, and respect others who are as well. I understand the 60 hour work week, under promising and over preforming, refusing to draw a dime of public assistance even if it means taking jobs that no one else wants becuause I will not be a burden to others, what it's like to labor without pay for months ...[text shortened]... ks from people like me! And that...Mr. Norm, Mr Sasquatch, and Mr. Whodey is what I advocate. 😏

You are a consumer of leftist propaganda. Good to see you supporting personal responsibility. For good or bad, our own actions are most causal in our outcomes.

Have you thought about who these 1% ers are? Today I passed by the American Axle plant in Hamtramk, MI. After a contentious strike, the company agreed to keep the place open, and ship only half the jobs to Mexico. Six months later, they closed the plant for good, citing the attendance and punctuality of the American workers.

I also don't need gun grabbers preaching to me about lost lives of kids. My daughter was executed in Detroit by gangbangers who did not respect or obey existing laws and would not be impressed by more restrictive gun laws. I hunt when I can, not to defend the 2nd amendment, not because I wish to emulate Daniel Boone, but because being outdoors is exhilarating. Hunting deer, and killing one are different things entirely.

Can we perhaps agree that the overpaid suits that really harm America and Americans are those we elect to Congress. No they should not have taxpayer funded health care and retirements. No partisanship here. Fire them all and replace them with $9 per hour workers.