Best explanation for Weimar Republic Inflation I ever read....

It is a misleading question which is not based on honest comment. I've told you specifically where you went wrong: you failed to understand the consequences of free riding, as illustrated by simple analysis such as public good provision. By ignoring the economics (and you have repeatedly done that), you have simply gone astray. Common sense should help you here!

Just more dodge! Given you attacked accepted comment in Econ 101, we're left with a simple binary outcome: (1) You don't understand Econ 101; (2) You disagree with Econ 101. I'm going with (1), given (2) doesn't require any dodge.

 

Partly true. The Weimar Republic was actually fairly successful, the German economy was stable throughout the 1920's although the reparations were a major burden and hindered actual prosperity.

Like so many other nations, Weimar fell apart in 1930 when the Great Depression hit.

 

Not true! Reparations weren't a major burden. Lloyd George summed up how Germany never were intended to pay it: "A still more important provision is that contained in Article 234. Germany was not to be
compelled to pay in full the damages assessed, or the instalments fixed under Article 233, if she could demonstrate that it was beyond her capacity to meet the obligations".

You could make an argument over impact on encouraging Nazism, or some application of game theory detailing how it distorted Weimar policy (and hindered growth). But that's about it!

 

Wow, you really don't know history.

German reparations were a burden on Germany and were paid until 1931 when a 1 year moratorium was allowed by the Allies due to the devastating impact of the Depression on Germany. In July 1932, reparations were terminated. It was only after reparations were terminated that Germany could address the failing economy through a Keynesian approach.

 

Wow, I quoted Lloyd George directly! Reparations were deliberately set high, with actual payments flexible. If they were a burden on the economy, payments fall. The real issue wasn't the level of reparations, but the lack of incentive to pay them. As I said, that was cultural (enabling Nazi growth) and strategic (as economic success would increase payments). Teach yourself some game theory and then get back to me!

Present one quality source in support of that. Show this burden. Refer to actual payments and predicted impact on GDP?

 

The well-being of whom?

 

Under? Under what?

 

If you want to joust in definitions, I'm really not interested.

Your argument completely bypasses the point of what I wrote so that you can claim some minuscule victory in the face of something that has been and will continue to be easily proven via experiment.

The free rider problem is very real. Was the use of an indefinite word like "always" a poor choice of words? Is it possible that you could run the experiment I reference 1000 times and have one that ended up with the opposite result? Well, it's possible that civil war soldiers could have buried stolen treasure under my house, but given that chance (or lack thereof) I'm not going to act on it, nor would I be foolish enough to believe that in a large group of people that they will ALL sufficiently put the needs of the group consistently over their own individual needs on a purely voluntary basis.

Free riding has a corrosive effect on groups (again born out by experiment).

The free rider problem creates the situation I claimed most of the time such that creating an economy that relied on the opposite would be as viewed as crazy as digging a hole in my basement looking for buried treasure.

 

Some in a group of people who share a common interest and whose actions or lack thereof effect one another.

 

So, the interest of some. Not very convincing.

 

I want to "joust" in principles. Using violence to coerce others isn't economics. It's just violence.

 

The group is only as strong as everyone who works in its interest. When two groups compete, all things being equal, the group that wins in the one where most of the people work in its interest which is best for everyone.

 

BS. Its well documented. Do your own research. Its not my job to try to teach history 101 to people that don't want to learn it (if you did want to learn, you would have already searched it out).

 

So fascism? That's what you're peddling? Not economics?

 

Already have, as illustrated by the words of Lloyd George. You've gone for a myth, stopping you from supporting your position with any credible evidence.

Reparations certainly significantly impacted on the economy (as I've already mentioned through reference to game theory, given incentives to grow were effectively hindered). Nothing to do with a burden as it was recognised that much of the reparations were on paper only.

 

Let it be known that this is the moment I went from disagreeing with you to not taking you seriously.

 

Free rider problem is resolved in a voluntarist society. This is something that authoritarians refuse to acknowledge. It exposes the dark motivations behind their "principaled stances"- to rule over others, or to be ruled because the can't trust themselves.

 

I think @Longshot point is: What if the best interest of the individual is not that of the group? The only alternative is to force the individual to work in the group, and against his own beast interest.

He is against such force as a person natural rights are of paramount importance.

And I've been following this the thread and when @Longshot asks a question you and @Reiver rarely give him a strait forward answer. I don't know about him (come to think of it, he probably has), but I stopped taking you two seriously aavery long time ago. Your comprehension of economics and ecomonic theory is partisan based. This is why he says "There is no "right wing" economics, there is just economics, which simply seeks to predict and explain people's decisions making with faced with scarce resources. But his very basic questions seek to drill down to the core of the issues, and you two avoid that, as do most people who avoid truth when is clashes with their presupposed world view.

 

What is the "best interest" of an individual? You seem to be defining that as "whatever the individual wants". If this is the way you are defining it, fine, but that doesn't change the fact that what I said; "The group is only as strong as everyone who works in its interest. When two groups compete, all things being equal, the group that wins in the one where most of the people work in its interest which is best for everyone." The reason this is true is because individuals cannot defend themselves from groups. They must secure the cooperation of others. If individuals work against or refuse to participate with the desires of a group, then that group is weaker as a result.

If an individual doesn't want to participate that's fine, in America you aren't being forced to stay (despite your BS about expatriation), but if you don't want to contribute, you will be forced to a choice to either participate or leave or suffer some consequence. See, it's sort of like being a team, except the team you're on was chosen by the geography of your birth. Lucky for your on a team that won't force you to stay if another team will have you.

I don't recognize "natural rights". That's simply a concept that people have created in their minds in order to assert their rights on some metaphysical grounds. The only power in the idea of natural rights is entirely determined by the number of people that subscribe to it. Instead of appealing to some nebulous concept like "natural rights", why not just demonstrate via evidence why rights and freedoms are better than not having rights and freedoms?

Of course, that assumes that people share ideas about what is "good" and what is "bad" in the context of a conversation like that.

As far as my economics and your alleged accusation that it's partisan based. You've just exposed yourself as completely ignorant to my understanding of economics as there isn't a single political party that understands never mind supports my explanations of economics, even if you can find things in common.

As far as scarce resources, this is a claim that so often goes unchallenged. Scarce with respect to what? Scarce in this context means not infinite, it does not mean there isn't enough either actually or potentially for people to have what they need. Now, if the question is, is there enough for everyone to have what they want? That really depends on the selfish desires of the people doing the wants. If you want everything, then no, there isn't enough, but most people don't want everything. This is born out by the fact that people accumulate massive claims on resources (money) rather than using those claims to acquire things of real value.

Individualism can say nothing to an individual whose wants create scarcity in the needs of others.

With respect to "right wing" economics....

This is like saying there is no such thing as "right wing" speed. Of course, but there are different goals with respect to moving from one place to another which will be facilitated by certain rates of speed. Just like there is no one "right" speed, there is no one "right" application of economics. Economics is by definition a behavior that occurs between people in a group. The group should agree on what it wants to accomplish with respect to the system of economics they embrace.

The entire philosophy of individualism doesn't pay any attention to the outcome with respect to the group or have an understanding of human behavior.

 

Its always interesting when someone (in this case you) places all kinds of time consuming demands on another person (me), and if that other person does not meet the demands then the facts are somehow not true.

Try this http://home.uchicago.edu/rmyerson/research/weimar.pdf

Or is the University of Chicago Dept of Economics not a "quality source" (LOL). Read it and weep.

 

1. A significant increase in the general valuation of human and animal life itself.....
due largely to a more Theistic version of Evolutionary Theory becoming popular.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...begin-in-matter-or-fundamental-energy.465052/

Where did Intelligence begin, in matter or fundamental energy?

........

2. Americans begin to consume less....
that is what was shown would happen by the year 2185 to
near death experiencer Howard Storm Ph. D...... and it sure fitted with
my understanding of Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel.

https://www.near-death.com/experiences/notable/howard-storm.html#a04

3. A real estate boom that could ... if necessary.....
take back all those USA Petro-dollars that are out there
serving as 70% or so of the world's reserve currency.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-fed-policy-pay-off-usa-national-debt.489825/

Could a real estate boom plus better Fed policy pay off USA national debt?

4. Matthew Fox Ph. D. stated in his book "Coming of the Cosmic Christ" that ART
in some form may be the only way to employ the majority of people in a time when
rapidly increasing technology puts millions of people out of work......... or greatly changes
the nature of their jobs.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...nyahu-lets-get-into-the-production-of.423385/
P. M. Benjamin Netanyahu, let's get into the production of....

 

This sort of comment takes optimism to the nth order! Amusing how right wingers ramble 'you don't understand human nature' to socialists, but think they can ignore self-interest when it suits them.

 

Chortle, chortle, you've managed to refer to a source that confirms what I said:

"As we have seen, the Allied reparations policy at Versailles was to set an impossible reparation debt according to self-defined judicial principles, and then to offer magnanimously to scale the debt down to match Germany's ability to pay. But this policy of repeatedly testing Germany's ability to pay had an insidious effect on German economic policy, because Germany could avoid reparations payments when it was in economic distress. In effect the Allies were imposing a high marginal tax rate on German prosperity, which reduced the German government's incentive to avoid economic calamities like hyperinflation and depression".

Its not about burden, its about repercussions of driving a wedge between what they are originally told to pay and what they really have to pay. And as I said, that wedge can be understood within a game theory context. Perhaps you should read your own sources before pretending that they support your position?

 

Wrong. Its easy to take a part out of context. Read the entire paper - I know its long and probably exceeds your attention span, but try.

 

Out of context? Chortle, chortle! I've quoted a big chunk that just repeated what I said. Tut tut! Please be more honest in your efforts