This is on-point as far as my morning tumblr interactions have gone.
The Robert Wenzel Shit Show continues to get worse
Turns out that someone on reddit decided to investigate further into Robert Wenzel, specifically his speech at the Federal Reserve.
Turns out Wenzel didn’t really give a speech at the Fed. Well, he technically did… to two people.
After Robert Wenzel’s embarrassing performance in his debate with Stephan Kinsella, a few people in another thread started to question the validity of his story about delivering that epic speech at the New York Fed. A quick google search turned up the following:
First, was this comment by RGallatin on a Forbes article about Wenzel’s Fed Speech:
This was not a “speech” at the in sense that Robert Wenzel was holding forth in front of large room full of Federal Reserve policy makers and analysts. I spoke with Richard Peach at the New York Fed: the “speech” was just Robert Wenzel having lunch in the dining room with two people — Richard Peach and one colleague — during which Wenzel read his speech to the two of them over lunch. This was not Netanyahu at the UN.http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonmatonis/2012/04/30/robert-wenzel-to-federal-reserve-leave-the-building-to-the-four-legged-rats/
A search on Wenzel’s blog seems to confirm that it was Richard Peach who had invited him to the fed.http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/02/taking-fed-economists-on.html
Another post on Wenzel’s blog states that he had been invited to the Fed (by an economist who he doesn’t name) to give a seminar. However the seminar was canceled with in 15 minutes of its announcement.
"When I arrived at the bank, the economist who originally invited me told me that there was a "schedule conflict" with a seminar and that the group meeting would be smaller than originally planned."http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/04/my-fed-speech-details.html
In his blog, Wenzel never states the number of people who listened to his speech. If you believe RGallatin, the number was two. One can only speculate. However, given his shrill and desperate tone while defending I.P., one hopes that very few people were present when he attempted to represent the Austrian School of Economics at the New York Federal Reserve Bank.
Wenzel is done for. I doubt anyone gives him an ounce of respect going forward.
I can’t wait to see what else people dig up.
Wenzel vs Kinsella: Intellectual Property Rights Debate
Why am I even trying to listen to this shit? Wenzel sounds like a complete moron. This is what people are talking about when they say “vulgar libertarian”.
All name calling and casting the opponent as “Ignorant”, “Clueless” and “Stupid” and almost no actual content from Wenzel. He quotes a few Austrians here and there and doesn’t actually say a damn thing so far. I’m about 35 minutes in. I don’t think I’m going to get through all 2.5 hours.
You Do Not Own Your Labor
“This line of argument is confused because of an over-reliance on vague metaphor. We have to stop thinking of contract as binding promises or obligations. We have to think of it, as Evers and Rothbard argue, as transfers of title to owned resources. And we have to recognize that these owned resources are only scarce, physical goods—not “labor.” You do not own your labor. You own your body. That gives you the right to perform actions (labor), but you do not own your actions. If I perform an action that you like, and pay me for, you do not own my action. You do not even “receive” my action. You simply prefer that I engage in it, for a variety of reasons.
In other words a labor contract may be viewed as an exchange only economically, but not legally. Economically, the employer gives up title to money, in “exchange” for you performing some action. But legally, it’s not an exchange at all, it’s just a one-way transfer of title: a conditional transfer of future title to future money, conditioned on the occurrence of a certain event happening (namely: that the “employee” does a certain action). That is, if you mow my lawn, then title to this gold coin transfers to you. Again, the transfer of title in this case is both expressly conditional and future-oriented. Title to the coin transfers only if the lawn is mowed, and I still own the coin.
The performance of the action triggers the transfer of money from the employer, but the action is not literally “sold” because the employee did not “own” his labor, and the employer does not own it after it is performed. We have to stop thinking sloppily and overusing metaphors.”
— Stephan Kinsella, A Libertarian Theory of Contract
One caveat I would add is that employers pay you to perform an action and this is a one way transfer but they do so with the expectation that your performance will result in a 3rd party transferring them some sort of payment, and usually greater than the original payment for your action.
If that second transfer isn’t possible or relied on or there is no expectation of a reciprocating action/reaction then most, if not all, employers would not initiate the initial action of transferring payment to you in the first place.
The secondary action can even be a negative. For example if you pay someone to stand guard as security on your property, your expected reciprocation from 3rd parties is that they will NOT bother you or enter your property.
You’re therefore paying for an action and expecting non-action in return.