Steve:
> Now that is funny since Hayek was an Austrian and most
> "conservatives" in the U.S. would not like his "libertarian" message.

I don't know what you mean by libertarian message at all. What was this
libertarian message you are suggesting that he is making?

Hayek lived and worked extensively in England during the time in which
Keynes's economic policies were implied to bring the world out of the worst
economic depression in many decades.

Unfortunately for Hayek his theories were not appreciated at the time. He
eventually returned to Germany. His mentor at one time was Ludvig von Mises.
In general Hayek's theories have had a significant impact in land economics,
theory of rents, and so on.

> > price, and
> > that every form of capital should be managed to maximize rents, or
> > in other
> > words maximize 'net present value'.
>
> I'd love to see where you got this from?

I gathered this from some of your own previous posts wherein you mention the
efficiency in market transactions for all sorts of transactions.

> > According to Hayek there is one market, and that market is free,
>
> I seriously doubt you got this from Hayek.  I have read Hayek and
> have not seen his reference to just one market.

He did criticize Keynes in this regard for utilizing 'economic aggregates'.
>
>
> > and that
> > determines the value of everything. The worst case scenario for a
> > conservative mind is to have capital remove from the market. That
> > is why
> > real estate agents hate public housing, parks, et cetera. And the
> > simple
> > CRAPOLA that drives the idea of the maximization of net present
> > valuing is
> > fraud, luxury consumption, and pride of possession (Adam Smith,
> > Sentiments)
> >
> > Unfortunately there are many natural resources which cannot be
> > maximized for
> > net present value. Simply stated the conservative, neo-liberal
> > classic
> > laissez faire policies result in nothing other than depletion.

Steve:
> Another unsubstantiated statement.  I could just as easily right that
> liberal, neo-commie classic command and control policies result in
> environmental destruction unparalleled anywhere in the West.  Don't
> know if it is true, but who gives a shit, sure sounds good.

Thanks.

I am not sure what you mean by 'neo-commic classic and control command? It
seems like OPEC is one such organization which is capable of command style
control policies? Can you elaborate more on the liberal, or libertarian
connections? your allusion to command and control policies also reflects in
large measure the antics of the WTO which has no mechanisms in place to
protect the environment and labour standards? Which classic neo-commie
'command and control polices are you referring to which resemble any links
to democractic socialism? Are you suggesting that environmental regulations
linked to protecting drinking water and clean air 'command and control
policies'? Who in fact owns these resources? Is is the citizens or is it the
vested interests who control and command all 'moveable capital'? It seems
that we have on a grand scale some very interesting arrangements in the
world with respect to policy formations that affect all that was supposed to
be the basis of your 'libertarian' notions.

And how about the military industrial complex mainly commanded by the
multinations, it's hench masters, and the US military mind? What about the
links between three world financing through the World Bank and continuing
'pauperization' of the defenseless in the world lacking ownership of their
own resources.


> > Discount me said the salmon. With net present value maximization
> > there is
> > economic justification for the liquidation of old growth, salmon
> > stocks, and
> > all oil and gas. That is what the former USSR is doing now:

Steve>
> Bzzt.  Wrong.  Maximization of the net present value of an assest
> could result in depletion.  Not the word 'could' there.  It is not an
> inevitable outcome.

Thanks.  I would not be so calavier as to go that far but based on
empricism, your response does justify the generalization except in the pure
world of theory. Sure there is nothing wrong in 'maximizing' of money, but
as often is the case the result is disasterous for natural resources. Hence
the inherent contradiction in Capitalism...things get ridiculously pricey
went they become scarce, and impossible to purchase




> > maximizing net
> > present value of its oil and gas. Once that is all used up RUSSIA
> > will end
> > up with a negative trade balance and runaway inflation.

Steve:
> Now that is interesting.  A negative trade imbalance resulting in
> runaway inflation.  Pray tell John, how does this work?  How does a
> negative trade imbalance result in runaway inflation?

The inflation becomes chronic due to the imbalance of imports at some time.
This has been a problem in the US where wages have become very high making
it difficult to export commodities. As a result, multinationals will build
factories in poorer countries to exploit cheap labour. This phenomenon has
reached record levels in the US. Back sometime in the seventies for instance
the US virtually stopped manufacturing TV sets. The last company that I
recall which made TV sets in the US was RCA, and I do not recall if they
still make any sets in the US. Wage inflation relative to world wage levels
leads to negative trade with other nations. For instance recently the
Canadian dollar has declined to about $0.62 US. That gives Canadian
exporters a huge advantage in selling commodities in the US and of course a
huge advantage for the forest products industry here which has been slapped
with up to 38% import tarriffs. I recall back in the seventies when the
Canadian dollar was worth more than the American dollar. There used to be
line-ups several miles long at the border going in to the US. Almost
everything was cheaper to buy in the US if you were Canadian, now the oppose
has occurred. People come in the droves from the US to shop here now. With
the US tarriffs against Canadian lumber the demand for US dollars should
fall and as a result the high valuation of the US dollar should decline
proportionately.

>
>
> > Using net present values to maximize personal utility is tantamount
> > to
> > 'selling the goose that laid the golden egg.'

Steve:
> Oh, shifting gears now, eh?  Maximizing the present value of utility
> is what consumers do right now.  By the way, when you are talking
> about utility you are almost always talking about consumers.

Yes, and unfortunately the results of this kind of preference would be
disasterous for ecosystems. Fortunately there are preferences which mitigate
this 'personal preference' such as values such as intergenerational equity,
love and respect for nature, et cetera.
>
>
>
> > We found that early in our forest economic classes. It is best to
> > sell all
> > the timber on a tract of land when the market price is the highest
> > than it
> > is to sell a sustainable amount of timber each planning decade. The

Steve:
> Really?  Care to actually give the example in full detail?

Simple. Using financial rotations to harvest timber leads to exhaustion of
the lands' productivity versus a more sustainable ecological rotation which
would prolong the production and make the inputs of finite resources less. >
>
> > notion
> > of sustainable yield in forestry is contrary to the economic ink of
> > Hayek
> > and company.
> >
> > For the conservative there is only one role for the state and that
> > is to
> > have a military and a justice system (Russell Kirk, The
> > Conservative Mind).
>
> Wrong again John.  This would be the libertarian mind.  Calling a
> libertarian a conservative would be like calling you a conservative.
>
> Steve

You should read The Conservative Mind by Kirk and decide for yourself. These
are the only institutions which the conservative will support if they are in
full command and control of the political economy (the rest would be done
through corporations).


>
>
> =====
> "In a nutshell, he [Steve] is 100% unadulterated evil. I do not believe in
a 'Satan', but this man is as close to 'the real McCoy' as they come."
> --Jamey Lee West
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
> http://greetings.yahoo.com