Phentermine online. Discount phentermine. Phentermine. Diet tablets phentermine. Mg buy phentermine. Phentermine success story. Buy phentermine diet pill….

Buy sublingual levitra online. Levitra and affects and sperm count. Which is better viagra cialis or levitra. Levitra….

but in an economics discussion it is either a non sequitor (if we pay heed to your parenthetical) or it's a contradiction (if we ignore it).

You'd have to explain that one to me. I draw a distinction between preferences and gains from trade. You don't?

But I really take strong issue on this subject. I think fundamentally Russ and Don agree with what I'm saying about the difference between forced autarky and voluntary autarky… but it really makes me scratch my head the way they present it sometimes.

RE: "I chose the loss because I prefer the activity. But that preference doesn't mean that it isn't a (monetary) loss."

Just reread that sentence for me!

This is why I have serious doubts about comments on this blog sometimes. Maybe this comment has some place in a personal finance discussion – but in an economics discussion it is either a non sequitor (if we pay heed to your parenthetical) or it's a contradiction (if we ignore it).

I like to do my own taxes and I like to cook my own meals because I like that kind of control, and at least in the case of cooking, I get enjoyment out of it. Do I "lose the gains from trade" by choosing to be self-sufficient?

You may if you grow/hunt your own food.

I like to do my own home repair too. Do I lose the "gains from trade" by not hiring a plumber? Of course not.

Depends on how valuable your time is. If you could generate higher returns with your time than the cost of hiring a plumber, then yes, you've missed on a possible gain. That might be your preference, I don't have a problem with that, and I don't think that Russ has a problem with that. However, that preference is not the same as missing on a gain from trade.

I'm with you on home repair. I'm a DIY'er. I'm relatively certain that some of the repairs I've made could have been done more cheaply by a professional. I chose the loss because I prefer the activity. But that preference doesn't mean that it isn't a (monetary) loss.

But sometimes this blog gets side-tracked into thinking that self-sufficiency in and of itself is somehow dangerous. It's not.

I think that might be a bit of an overstatement. All Russ is talking about is the specialization and division of labor. He's just doing it tangentially. A person who does everything (in the literal sense) for himself won't be able to specialize and profit from that specialization.

HUH???? How does the fact that a Marxist gets utility from stealing private property have anything to do with the fact that I like to buy tomatoes at a farmer's market?

MnM -
RE: "You miss their meaning. What Russ means (if I've read him correctly) is that "abstinence from trade is the road to poverty." He's using "self-sufficient" in the literal sense (i.e. a person who, quite literally doesn't rely on anyone for anything: he makes his own food, clothes, shelter, etc). "

I don't actually think Russ and Don think that these personal decisions hurt people. I'm hoping they don't actually think that at least. I think Russ really does mean "forced self-sufficiency is the road to poverty". I like to do my own taxes and I like to cook my own meals because I like that kind of control, and at least in the case of cooking, I get enjoyment out of it. Do I "lose the gains from trade" by choosing to be self-sufficient? I like to do my own home repair too. Do I lose the "gains from trade" by not hiring a plumber? Of course not. I would lose the possibility of those gains from trade only if someone forced me not to consult an accountant, told me I could never go to a restaurant, and told me that I could never hire a plumber. THAT is the road to poverty. And I think ultimately that's all Russ means.

But sometimes this blog gets side-tracked into thinking that self-sufficiency in and of itself is somehow dangerous. It's not.

However – you bring up a VERY good point that I've observed here too. For some reason, Russ and Don always seem confused on this point. They say "self-sufficiency is the road to poverty".

Absolutely not true.

You miss their meaning. What Russ means (if I've read him correctly) is that "abstinence from trade is the road to poverty." He's using "self-sufficient" in the literal sense (i.e. a person who, quite literally doesn't rely on anyone for anything: he makes his own food, clothes, shelter, etc).

Because of this self-sufficiency he/she misses out on gains from trade.

So what is your advice to the Marxists? "Go ahead, bring about the Communist revolution, don't let Russ and Don tell you that it will not work, it's not the road to poverty becuase you think otherwise". Respecting another's right to believe as they choose, is not to think they should believe what they do.

You are continually confused on this issue. It matters not only what people want to do, but why they want to do it.

If people shop at "Mom and Pop" stores, or advocate self-sufficiency, while understanding the trade-offs involved, then Don and Russ would likely remain quiet. What they object to are the illusory benefits such advocates suppose shopping at "Mom and Pop" stores, or more self-sufficiency, would bring. In other words, Don and Russ are merely trying to point out what trade-offs such decisions entail, because with full recognition of the costs few people, they believe, would continue to advocate such positions.

A man is completely within his rights to try and make it rain by dancing around a fire. A meteorologist, however, while respecting the man's liberty, might nonetheless object that dancing around the fire will not cause his desired end, and suggest others not to emulate his example unless they just like dancing around fires.

I'm comforted that Russ's answer was exactly my answer – the division of labor, plain and simple.

However – you bring up a VERY good point that I've observed here too. For some reason, Russ and Don always seem confused on this point. They say "self-sufficiency is the road to poverty".

Absolutely not true.

What they SHOULD be saying, and what SHOULD be obvious to them as libertarians is "forced self-sufficiency is the road to poverty".

If you choose to be self-sufficient, clearly it has some value to you – it can't be impoverishing.

So go ahead and shop at the farmer's markets and the mom and pop shops! Don't let Russ and Don tell you not to! I promise you, it's not the road to poverty (unless some hippie is making you do it by force… which seems somewhat unlikely, doesn't it?).

Finally, can economist ever have a discussion that does not assume that all people engage only in the pursuit of a blind “hill-climbing” strategy that finally results with summiting on a small local mound?

Assuming the truth seems a reasonable strategy.

You say that slaves were common world-wide, but their masters did something different in the US. Is it because of these different market behaviors that everyone here has mentioned that the US used their slave (and other) resources more efficiently than in other countries?

To hear a libertarian proclaim a self sufficient man a poor man and by inference a dependent man a wealthy man was to me a tell-tale of a fatal flaw in a philosophy that holds such disdain for socialism and puts liberty above all else.

I couldn't disagree more. Maybe "libertarian" is a poor title, but nominally "libertarian" rhetoric typically emphasizes virtues of market organization, and markets are all about interdependence.

Personally, I prefer "mutualism" to "libertarianism", but I don't expect to craft any "mutualist" movement here, and I don't want to craft one, because political movements invariably morph into something ugly that I don't want to endorse.

I much prefer "mutualism" to "capitalism", but I don't expect folks here to eschew "capitalism" either; however, I will make the distinction when objectionable tenets of "capitalist" ideology appear.

In ironic reality, the modern "libertarian" movement (personified by Rothbard and others) is rooted in nineteenth century movements inspired by men like Proudhon and Tucker, then called "socialism" and opposed to "capitalism".

Rothbard himself understood this fact. That's just the way political rhetoric evolves. Words reverse meaning, because politicians always speak from both sides of their mouths.

We are indeed social beings and that is where our success comes from. But apparently the holders of liberal philosophy see no conflict with their proclamations and definitions of liberty, wealth and dependence.

Of course, not. Where did you get the idea that (classical) liberals oppose interdependence?

To claim the converse for the antebellum US is most curious.

I am reerring to the period pre 1776, by 19th centuary the economic structure was already in place…

before 1776, north was little different from south..

diference in growth from north to south after 1776 can be explained by the more industry led growth in north as compared to south..but pre-american revolution the contribution of slaves in creating economic structure that can then florish to modern US can not be denied…

They did.
In the Constitution, as originally written, taxes levied on income needed to be distributed back according to census, not the whim of federal blackmailers.
In addition the Senate was chosen by the States, not the people, so the States actually had representation in Washington.
If those two things had been kept in place the feds would have been unable to blackmail the States as they do, and the State governments tasked with implementing all these mandates would have had a voice.