I'm doing Comments on Comments once again for the next Robert Wenzel Show, so if you have any questions or topics you would like me to cover please leave them in the comments section below.
Robert, Recently Gary North wrote an article you posted on Gold going to $50,000 and hyperinflation. He doesnt think it's even remotely possible in the next 6 years or so and you claimed he was mostly right. Please include your own analysis of why this is or is not possible and tie this in with your overall outlook on the economy for those of us who want a professional economist's assessment of the fundamentals which includes inflation, wages, unemployment, the manipulation of the gold/silver price, the stock/housing/bond markets, and the concept of an economic "collapse" that most people seem to be fearful of and why that fear is or is not justified.
Umm, Anon 5:48, Robert addressed this in his last Comments on Comments, towards the end of the broadcast.
One thing you can do to increase the likelihood of getting your comments posted is to not post anonymously but to instead choose a profile and stick with it, so he'll get to recognize you.
Any chance you could address credit unions? I'm curious if you feel if credit unions (or regional/local banks) are an effective available way to fight the big crony banking cartels or is it futile.
What do you think is behind the recent phenomenon of so many normally reliable libertarian non-interventionists such as Anthony Gregory, John Glaser etc. getting the Ukrainian crisis wrong? They were quick to condemn Russia (which is fine), but they blithely ignore the prior Washington instigated overthrow of a democratically elected government which provoked Putin's relatively mild reaction. They've even stooped to neocon like tactics of accusing there opponents of "supporting Putin.
Do you believe as I do that by accepting the false narrative they are indirectly helping the war propagandists and interventionists?
I like hearing about "freedom oasis'" throughout the world. Surely, Mr. Wenzel can share some secrets. . I have some friends in Panama and they swear it's like America circa 1980's. (but they snorted the 80's up their noses so I just...don't...know).
1) I've brought this up in comments before but regarding libertarianism and the environment, my concern is that it's reactive rather than proactive (though I absolutely do recognize the danger of creating a "power center" that decides what is proactively bad). Let's say that fracking was proven to cause all the damage that people believe (e.g. pollutes the land and water and makes those areas unlivable). What happens if that is found out AFTER a large segment of the country has already been fracked? There's no paying people back in damages if there is no clean water to drink and you can't grow healthy food. I fully admit I don't have any solutions here either btw.
2) I feel like a glaring weakness in property rights is "how did the first person come to own the land to begin with"? Tom Woods had Stephan Kinsella on his show the other day and he answered that question that "the first person to claim the land, put up walls, use the land, etc" has "the best claim" to it. This seems *incredibly* arbitrary to me. Let's say that one day science makes it possible for man to live on the moon. Can some astronaut who flies to the moon simply claim the entire moon to themselves? They'd have the best claim after all.
"Greedy banks made big bets leading up the financial crisis of 2008 and lost". This is often touted in the media. I would like to know then - who actually WON those bets?
Hello Robert. I am curious of your experiences with those who are willing to forfeit their freedoms, and property to uphold the current system of gov. How would you convince them that what they view as a small, democratically agreed upon, forced sacrifice is not preferable to a system that upholds natural rights as sacrosanct? Any stories of converts through discussion? If so, what are the key ideas that hit the hardest?
Robert,
ReplyDeleteRecently Gary North wrote an article you posted on Gold going to $50,000 and hyperinflation. He doesnt think it's even remotely possible in the next 6 years or so and you claimed he was mostly right. Please include your own analysis of why this is or is not possible and tie this in with your overall outlook on the economy for those of us who want a professional economist's assessment of the fundamentals which includes inflation, wages, unemployment, the manipulation of the gold/silver price, the stock/housing/bond markets, and the concept of an economic "collapse" that most people seem to be fearful of and why that fear is or is not justified.
Thank you in advance.
Yeah, lets talk about why you don't publish all the comments you receive, even when they contain no foul language.
ReplyDelete[Which I concede is perfectly within your rights as this is your space, just not within your professed adherence to intellectual honesty]
Umm, Anon 5:48, Robert addressed this in his last Comments on Comments, towards the end of the broadcast.
DeleteOne thing you can do to increase the likelihood of getting your comments posted is to not post anonymously but to instead choose a profile and stick with it, so he'll get to recognize you.
Thank you Chris. I will listen to it to hear his answer.
DeleteYou're welcome, it's a great show, I think you'll enjoy it all the way through. I'm looking forward to the next one too. Lots of good ideas below!
DeleteRobert,
ReplyDeleteI would love to hear your position on the question of whether or not reputation is property, as discussed in this thread by myself and Nick:
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/02/will-walter-block-be-on-firm.html?showComment=1391489627075#c7188723142032632517
Robert
ReplyDeleteAny chance you could address credit unions? I'm curious if you feel if credit unions (or regional/local banks) are an effective available way to fight the big crony banking cartels or is it futile.
Thanks
What do you think is behind the recent phenomenon of so many normally reliable libertarian non-interventionists such as Anthony Gregory, John Glaser etc. getting the Ukrainian crisis wrong? They were quick to condemn Russia (which is fine), but they blithely ignore the prior Washington instigated overthrow of a democratically elected government which provoked Putin's relatively mild reaction. They've even stooped to neocon like tactics of accusing there opponents of "supporting Putin.
ReplyDeleteDo you believe as I do that by accepting the false narrative they are indirectly helping the war propagandists and interventionists?
I like hearing about "freedom oasis'" throughout the world.
ReplyDeleteSurely, Mr. Wenzel can share some secrets.
.
I have some friends in Panama and they swear it's like America circa 1980's.
(but they snorted the 80's up their noses so I just...don't...know).
A couple of questions
ReplyDelete1) I've brought this up in comments before but regarding libertarianism and the environment, my concern is that it's reactive rather than proactive (though I absolutely do recognize the danger of creating a "power center" that decides what is proactively bad). Let's say that fracking was proven to cause all the damage that people believe (e.g. pollutes the land and water and makes those areas unlivable). What happens if that is found out AFTER a large segment of the country has already been fracked? There's no paying people back in damages if there is no clean water to drink and you can't grow healthy food. I fully admit I don't have any solutions here either btw.
2) I feel like a glaring weakness in property rights is "how did the first person come to own the land to begin with"? Tom Woods had Stephan Kinsella on his show the other day and he answered that question that "the first person to claim the land, put up walls, use the land, etc" has "the best claim" to it. This seems *incredibly* arbitrary to me. Let's say that one day science makes it possible for man to live on the moon. Can some astronaut who flies to the moon simply claim the entire moon to themselves? They'd have the best claim after all.
-Kevin
"Greedy banks made big bets leading up the financial crisis of 2008 and lost". This is often touted in the media. I would like to know then - who actually WON those bets?
ReplyDeletePlease elaborate on your theory of "designed rights." I would love to hear more on this.
ReplyDeleteYour latest thoughts on "Suits"
ReplyDeleteHello Robert.
ReplyDeleteI am curious of your experiences with those who are willing to forfeit their freedoms, and property to uphold the current system of gov. How would you convince them that what they view as a small, democratically agreed upon, forced sacrifice is not preferable to a system that upholds natural rights as sacrosanct? Any stories of converts through discussion? If so, what are the key ideas that hit the hardest?
Robert... i'd love to hear your thoughts on the recent ruling that college athletes are allowed to unionize (or whatever the official ruling was)
ReplyDelete