Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

The Economy must be doing worse than we're told

Discussions about the economic and financial ramifications of PEAK OIL
Post a reply

Re: The Economy must be doing worse than we're told

Unread postby jaws » Sat 15 Apr 2006, 20:48:15

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MyOtherID', 'T')hese small/no government idiots want a world where they don't have to pay any taxes, where it's dog eat dog and may the best man win. They resent every cent they pay in taxes, seeing it as "wealth redistribution". They measure life in terms of possessions, and they have no concept of the communal good.

I do care for the communal good, and I have come to understand that socialism attacks and destroys this communal good. Only a system of peaceful cooperation without aggression on property can create the communal good. Anything else results in the world where the big dogs bite at everyone, especially the poor.
User avatar
jaws
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1228
Joined: Sun 24 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: The Economy must be doing worse than we're told

Unread postby jaws » Sat 15 Apr 2006, 20:54:07

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kabu', 'I')t is the policy of aggression on the private, excessive consolidation of the means to produce and ustilize what everyone needs. It does allow for personal property, however. Individual liberty? Elaborate.
"Does allow" is a corruption of liberty and rights. It is not the right of anyone to "allow" or "disallow" property rights. To claim as such is to justify aggression in cases where it is "disallowed."

People have the right to own what they produce, and the right to enter into any exchange they find beneficial. They don't have to be "allowed" as such.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')f socialism is intrinsically chaotic and impovershing, then an explanatory model ought to be easy produce. If you'd prefer to just draw lines between a country's economic system and its complete collapse, then you should at least point us to all your research, otherwise we must accept your assertion based upon faith.

For the theory explaining why total socialism is impossible, read Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth. For the empirical evidence, see post-revolution Russia or China.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'E')ven if I grant that A leads to B, that doesn't mean that C was created by B; it could also be the case that A lead to C as well. In other words, don't mistake correlation for causation.
The causation is direct. No one else but the government has the power of aggression against property and liberty. Therefore it follows that only a corrupt government will succeed at it.
User avatar
jaws
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1228
Joined: Sun 24 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: The Economy must be doing worse than we're told

Unread postby ohanian » Sat 15 Apr 2006, 21:14:35

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jaws', '
')Before the trade Robinson, by working 12 hours a day, could either catch 12 fish or get 120 mangoes (or a mix of both). But if he trades with Friday, he can catch 120 mangoes and exchange them for 15 fish! He thus gets 3 more fish than he would have caught by himself if he specializes in mangoes.

Friday, by working 12 hours a day, could either catch 24 fish or get 144 mangoes (or a mix of both). He can exchange his 24 fish for 192 mangoes, thus get 48 more mangoes than he could if he had foraged them himself.


What a load of garbage

Robinson get pick 120 mangoes a day
Friday can pick 144 mangoes a day

According to your bullshit arguement

Friday can get 192 mangoes a day by exchanging his 24 fishs.

Have you take stupid pills this morning????
User avatar
ohanian
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1553
Joined: Sun 17 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: The Economy must be doing worse than we're told

Unread postby jaws » Sat 15 Apr 2006, 21:22:20

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ohanian', '[')size=200]What a load of garbage[/size]

Robinson get pick 120 mangoes a day
Friday can pick 144 mangoes a day

According to your bullshit arguement

Friday can get 192 mangoes a day by exchanging his 24 fishs.

Have you take stupid pills this morning????

You're missing the point. Working hours can be expanded or contracted. They are both more productive than they were beforehand. If Friday only wants to eat 10 mangoes a day, it still pays for him to trade as he can then enjoy more leisure.
User avatar
jaws
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1228
Joined: Sun 24 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: The Economy must be doing worse than we're told

Unread postby rogerhb » Sat 15 Apr 2006, 21:32:47

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MyOtherID', 'I')t's a peculiar form of dementia they suffer from, most widely seen in the USA, but you'll also find sufferers in New Zealand, it seems.


Explaining a theory does not mean you have to agree with it.
"Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers." - Henry Louis Mencken
User avatar
rogerhb
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4727
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Smalltown New Zealand
Top

Re: The Economy must be doing worse than we're told

Unread postby kabu » Sat 15 Apr 2006, 22:08:01

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jaws', '"')Does allow" is a corruption of liberty and rights. It is not the right of anyone to "allow" or "disallow" property rights. To claim as such is to justify aggression in cases where it is "disallowed."


I would see eye to eye with you on this if it weren't for property scarcity, along with human greed. I believe in sharing, personally, and only taking what I need. Without a government duly controlling who owns what, people might miss out on the required means to producing or harvesting what they need to survive. If a government lets people own as much as their personal power permits them too, then those without power start finding themselves in trouble. Like I said, this is only because of property scarcity (land, in particular).

For example, 9 people loose their vesel and are now stuck on an island that's already inhabited by a man who claimed it as his own long before they got there. Let's even say this island can support all 10 of them. Does this man now have the right to trade his permission for them to use his island for 1/10ths of the fruits of their labour, no longer working himself because he "owns" this property? Do they have the right to disallow him from his "ownership", forcing him to work himself?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')eople have the right to own what they produce, and the right to enter into any exchange they find beneficial. They don't have to be "allowed" as such.


I agree up to the point that people are producing more than they need- assuming others need what they're producing- if they're also hogging the limited means of production available on the planet.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')For the theory explaining why total socialism is impossible, read Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth. For the empirical evidence, see post-revolution Russia or China.


Thanks, I bookmarked it and will get around to reading this, if you believe it to be the strongest argument at hand. As a layman though, I was hoping for something peer-reviewed or at least succinct! ;)

So long as its not convoluted...

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he causation is direct. No one else but the government has the power of aggression against property and liberty. Therefore it follows that only a corrupt government will succeed at it.


I already granted you, for argument's sake, that A (corrupt government) leads to B (socialism). What I was saying was that even though C (poverty) appears after B, doesn't mean that B caused C. It could also mean that A caused C too.

As for your if B therefore A argument, well it rests upon your belief that any aggression against property can also be interperted as an aggression against liberty and rights. Until you convince me that a state should not redistribute what you do not need to someone who does need it, we definitely cannot agree that a socialist state intrinsically infringes upon one's liberty and rights. Unless we both go by seperate definations, that is!

Maybe you'd be happier living in Somalia? I heard that while capitalism there has helped business flourish, even the majority of businessmen miss paying taxes so that a government can redistribute their wealth as a security to all in the form of a police force. Or is it just things like public healthcare that are bad and socialist?
User avatar
kabu
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 316
Joined: Sun 29 May 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: The Economy must be doing worse than we're told

Unread postby jaws » Sat 15 Apr 2006, 23:10:10

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rogerhb', 'E')xplaining a theory does not mean you have to agree with it.
The law of comparative advantage is not a theory, it is a logical theorem. It is no more disputable than the statement 2 + 2 = 4. To disagree with it is a sign of irrationality and confusion.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kabu', 'I') would see eye to eye with you on this if it weren't for property scarcity, along with human greed. I believe in sharing, personally, and only taking what I need. Without a government duly controlling who owns what, people might miss out on the required means to producing or harvesting what they need to survive. If a government lets people own as much as their personal power permits them too, then those without power start finding themselves in trouble. Like I said, this is only because of property scarcity (land, in particular).

This is just evidence of total confusion on your part. Property scarcity is not a problem, property is how we handle scarcity! In a world without scarcity there is no need for property as no conflicts ever arise. No one owns the air, because there is a nearly limitless supply of air and my breathing air does not conflict with your use of air. It is when a good is scarce that a conflict between two persons arises: who has the right to control this good? The person who owns it.

Without property rights protecting scarce goods, no scarce goods will ever be produced by anyone. We will all suffer from starvation. The idea that governments shouldn't allow people to own scarce goods is ludicrous. We must encourage people to produce as many scarce goods as possible. You're mistaken to think that we have a problem of land scarcity. Land itself is completely useless. In order to produce scarce goods, land must be transformed into a farm. This farm then becomes a scarce good. If the government regretably begins to steal and redistribute "land," the consequence will be that scarce farms will erode away and vanish, and we will all suffer from starvation. This is what happened recently in Zimbambwe.

You claim you believe in sharing. Sharing implies ownership. Sharing means taking something that is yours and giving it to others who have not produced it. Without property, there cannot be sharing, there is only theft.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'F')or example, 9 people loose their vesel and are now stuck on an island that's already inhabited by a man who claimed it as his own long before they got there. Let's even say this island can support all 10 of them. Does this man now have the right to trade his permission for them to use his island for 1/10ths of the fruits of their labour, no longer working himself because he "owns" this property? Do they have the right to disallow him from his "ownership", forcing him to work himself?
If this man has lived for a long time on this island he will have transformed it into a farm or some form of productive structure. It was his work that made this island productive. The 9 shipwrecked have no right to these goods. But since we are aware of the law of comparative advantage, we know that if they all cooperate together and respect the man's property rights, they will all be wealthier than they would be if they attacked the man and stole the island from him.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') agree up to the point that people are producing more than they need- assuming others need what they're producing- if they're also hogging the limited means of production available on the planet.

[...]

As for your if B therefore A argument, well it rests upon your belief that any aggression against property can also be interperted as an aggression against liberty and rights. Until you convince me that a state should not redistribute what you do not need to someone who does need it, we definitely cannot agree that a socialist state intrinsically infringes upon one's liberty and rights. Unless we both go by seperate definations, that is!
People never produce more than they need. Why would they produce something if they do not need it? It would be a waste of their scarce means. If a scarce good was truly not needed, then the owner would simply abandon it and this good could then be appropriated by the first person who runs across it. For example, people often leave old furniture by the side of the road, and then someone else comes along and claims it.

Government redistribution is not like that. People resist being robbed by the government because the property that is taken from them is needed. It is completely wrong to assume that government theft of property only takes from people what they do not need.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hanks, I bookmarked it and will get around to reading this, if you believe it to be the strongest argument at hand. As a layman though, I was hoping for something peer-reviewed or at least succinct! ;)
It was reviewed by famous socialist economist Oskar Lange who believed it was such an important criticism of socialism that a statue of the author ought to be built in Poland.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')aybe you'd be happier living in Somalia? I heard that while capitalism there has helped business flourish, even the majority of businessmen miss paying taxes so that a government can redistribute their wealth as a security to all in the form of a police force. Or is it just things like public healthcare that are bad and socialist?Any government monopoly of the production of a good is socialist, including the production of security. Somalia has returned to traditional clan law (a procedure advocated by many of the people who blame Africa's troubles on colonialism) which affords people at least more freedom and rights than the old Somali state, but it is not entirely liberal law. My prediction on Somalia is that it will do better than neighboring states, but not much better.
User avatar
jaws
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1228
Joined: Sun 24 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: The Economy must be doing worse than we're told

Unread postby kabu » Sun 16 Apr 2006, 01:54:29

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')This is just evidence of total confusion on your part. Property scarcity is not a problem, property is how we handle scarcity! In a world without scarcity there is no need for property as no conflicts ever arise.


Property implies scarcity, you're right. It is how we handle scarcity, yeah. The scarcer the property, the more valuable it is going to be. Air is not scarce, so there's not need for an organization, whether that be private or public, to attach a breath-o-meter to our mouths when we're in "their" area. Maybe if the air had to be filtered then this would, by property rights, be enforced! :o

Umm... but "evidence of total confusion"? About what, exactly? You made a good point- your second valid point so far- grammatical also- that there was some wordosity behind my saying property scarcity; so if want to develop a relationship between, say, poverty and scarcity, I wont compound the words property and scarcity and just use scarcity by itself, k?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'w')ho has the right to control this good? The person who owns it.


That's a circular statement, but yeah, this is actually what I was trying to discuss with you: rights of ownership. Who ought to have what, as property.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')ithout property rights protecting scarce goods, no scarce goods will ever be produced by anyone. We will all suffer from starvation.


How could we not have property rights, in some form? Without property rights that were widely respected, we'd still continue to produce goods, we'd just be in the situation where we'd produce only what we needed to consume, rather than producing lots and storing them. If it was required that we stored scarce goods (winter), then we'd simply have to guard what needed to be hoarded, if not by paper then by gun.

But... uh, you were probably just pointing out the obvious? I just don't see its application to reality.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he idea that governments shouldn't allow people to own scarce goods is ludicrous. We must encourage people to produce as many scarce goods as possible.


I believe that a government need only encourage people to produce as many scarce goods as needed by the group. More can be produced if desired, after that point, so long as it doesn't harm anyone or anything. These scarce goods can then be exchanged or turned into anything desired, because as everyone's needs have already been fulfilled, why should a socialist government interfere with this?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')You're mistaken to think that we have a problem of land scarcity. Land itself is completely useless. In order to produce scarce goods, land must be transformed into a farm. This farm then becomes a scarce good.

For sure. I thought it was safe to assume that I was referring to the natural resources on the land. And not all land can be transformed into a farm, of course. Likewise as not all land is a viable location for a lumber mill.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')f the government regretably begins to steal and redistribute "land," the consequence will be that scarce farms will erode away and vanish, and we will all suffer from starvation. This is what happened recently in Zimbambwe.

It depends on how effectively this redistribution of land is done. I haven't studied Zimbabwe, so I can't comment on your example. Maybe we could discuss Venezuela, instead?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou claim you believe in sharing. Sharing implies ownership. Sharing means taking something that is yours and giving it to others who have not produced it. Without property, there cannot be sharing, there is only theft.

Without property there's no sharing just theft? I would think that there wouldn't be either...

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')f this man has lived for a long time on this island he will have transformed it into a farm or some form of productive structure.

No, in this case he just picked mangos. :P

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')t was his work that made this island productive.

No, the only production that takes place on this island is climbing up the mango trees and picking mangos! He did not work for those trees, but he claims the island, along with its trees, as his property, because he was there long before anyone else came upon it.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')The 9 shipwrecked have no right to these goods. But since we are aware of the law of comparative advantage, we know that if they all cooperate together and respect the man's property rights, they will all be wealthier than they would be if they attacked the man and stole the island from him.


Now that I've clarified my scenario, what do you think? I'd climb up the trees and pick what I needed, not doing his work for him. And the law of comparative advantage wouldn't make me wealthier for aggressively ignoring his property claim. Of course once he became old to climb up the trees himself, I'd do all his work for him because I am companionate and it would now be reasonable.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')People never produce more than they need. Why would they produce something if they do not need it? It would be a waste of their scarce means. If a scarce good was truly not needed, then the owner would simply abandon it and this good could then be appropriated by the first person who runs across it. For example, people often leave old furniture by the side of the road, and then someone else comes along and claims it.

Of course they do! Don't equate one's wants with one's needs. Who the hell actually needs to drive a sportscar around town, or to house his/her family of four in a gigantic mansion?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Government redistribution is not like that. People resist being robbed by the government because the property that is taken from them is needed. It is completely wrong to assume that government theft of property only takes from people what they do not need.

If they take what is needed then that is certainly wrong. However, if they're simply taking what is wanted then that might very well be a completely different story. Take, for example, the British beef company that Hugo gave to the landless poor for farming purposes. If you want to debate a real world example, then let's start with this (both sides of the story are still presently available).
User avatar
kabu
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 316
Joined: Sun 29 May 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: The Economy must be doing worse than we're told

Unread postby jaws » Sun 16 Apr 2006, 03:12:04

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kabu', 'P')roperty implies scarcity, you're right. It is how we handle scarcity, yeah. The scarcer the property, the more valuable it is going to be. Air is not scarce, so there's not need for an organization, whether that be private or public, to attach a breath-o-meter to our mouths when we're in "their" area. Maybe if the air had to be filtered then this would, by property rights, be enforced! :o

Umm... but "evidence of total confusion"? About what, exactly? You made a good point- your second valid point so far- grammatical also- that there was some wordosity behind my saying property scarcity; so if want to develop a relationship between, say, poverty and scarcity, I wont compound the words property and scarcity and just use scarcity by itself, k?
You still do not understand that the nature of property is to eliminate conflicts of scarcity. There cannot be a problem of scarcity once property rights have been defined. You are still suffering from confusion.

What you are really complaining about is a problem of poverty, i.e. people unable to consume as much as they would prefer to. Scarcity is irrelevant to this issue as we will always have to deal with some form of scarcity, no matter how opulently wealthy we are.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')ow could we not have property rights, in some form? Without property rights that were widely respected, we'd still continue to produce goods, we'd just be in the situation where we'd produce only what we needed to consume, rather than producing lots and storing them. If it was required that we stored scarce goods (winter), then we'd simply have to guard what needed to be hoarded, if not by paper then by gun.

[...]

Without property there's no sharing just theft? I would think that there wouldn't be either...
Without well defined property rights we would be in a position where we would only produce what we would be able to physically defend (only what we can possess, not what we own). Since our ability to defend ourselves from aggression is limited, we would all produce less than we could under a system of secure property rights. When the aggressor is very well organized (a communist state for example) we would produce essentially nothing as it would be impossible to resist aggression.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') believe that a government need only encourage people to produce as many scarce goods as needed by the group. More can be produced if desired, after that point, so long as it doesn't harm anyone or anything. These scarce goods can then be exchanged or turned into anything desired, because as everyone's needs have already been fulfilled, why should a socialist government interfere with this?

There is no such as thing as "needed by the group." The group doesn't think. The group doesn't make valuations. The group doesn't know what it needs because there is no such thing as a group. There are only individuals who think and make valuations. Only individuals can know what they need. Individuals form networks of exchange in a free market to help each other produce what they need. No act of production and no private property ever harms anyone, it helps everyone to build the network of cooperation. Aggression against property will only hurt.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')o, the only production that takes place on this island is climbing up the mango trees and picking mangos! He did not work for those trees, but he claims the island, along with its trees, as his property, because he was there long before anyone else came upon it.

He did work when he cared for the welfare of the trees. If he picks only the ripe mangoes and allows the unripe mangoes to mature, then he is making a capital adjustment to the tree. He therefore has ownership rights on the tree.

Without this right there will be a race to pick all the fruits from the tree before the others do (the tragedy of the commons). Soon the trees will be picked clean and there will be nothing available for anyone.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')f course they do! Don't equate one's wants with one's needs. Who the hell actually needs to drive a sportscar around town, or to house his/her family of four in a gigantic mansion?What if the man in the sportscar decides that you don't really need an apartment or medicine? You have no right to decide what someone else needs, only what you need for yourself. Anything else becomes a social war of all against all.

Wants and needs are the same.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'F')or sure. I thought it was safe to assume that I was referring to the natural resources on the land. And not all land can be transformed into a farm, of course. Likewise as not all land is a viable location for a lumber mill.

It depends on how effectively this redistribution of land is done. I haven't studied Zimbabwe, so I can't comment on your example. Maybe we could discuss Venezuela, instead?

If they take what is needed then that is certainly wrong. However, if they're simply taking what is wanted then that might very well be a completely different story. Take, for example, the British beef company that Hugo gave to the landless poor for farming purposes. If you want to debate a real world example, then let's start with this (both sides of the story are still presently available).
First of all, "Hugo" (what a pleasantly informal name) did not "give" the company to the landless poor. It was not his company. He stole the company and destroyed it, then carved out the much less productive remains to the poor. This was a destructive act that impoverishes the country as a whole, as that company could have provided employment to many and now cannot. The country has suffered a destruction of capital.

If Hugo had instead created a free market in Venezuela then the landless poor could have started businesses that traded with this beef company. Then the poor would have accumulated their own capital while the beef company would have received valuable services. Everyone would have become wealthier. This is the nature of peaceful social cooperation.

The landless poor do not need land. The crushing majority of people in wealthy countries are not land owners, nor do they need to be in order to become wealthy. Countries with absolutely no natural resources to speak of, such as Japan, have become very wealthy by peaceful trade with resource owners. It only takes freedom.
User avatar
jaws
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1228
Joined: Sun 24 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: The Economy must be doing worse than we're told

Unread postby rogerhb » Sun 16 Apr 2006, 03:29:52

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jaws', 'T')he group doesn't know what it needs because there is no such thing as a group.


This reminds me of a mad old English women who claimed there was no such thing as society, then proceeded to implement the "community charge".
"Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers." - Henry Louis Mencken
User avatar
rogerhb
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4727
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Smalltown New Zealand
Top

Re: The Economy must be doing worse than we're told

Unread postby MyOtherID » Sun 16 Apr 2006, 03:35:22

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jaws', 'Y')ou have no right to decide what someone else needs, only what you need for yourself. Anything else becomes a social war of all against all.


But this thinking would logically lead to a banishment of all taxation, and especially progressive taxation, where the rich pay more tax than the poor. The whole premise of progressive taxation is that rich people can afford to give up more money than poorer people can. That implies a judgement of relative needs has been made, do you see?

And that is why your aggressively laissez-faire, individualistic approach would lead to a society riven with disparity, teetering forever on the edge of violent insurrection or revolution.

I suggest to you that you spend time in places that have both systems (semi-socialist, like Australia, and rampant capitalist, like the USA). I have. I can tell you that the semi-socialist countries are more peaceful, safer, cleaner and much nicer to live in. You don't see homeless people living in parks, you have much less crime, and everyone has a degree of self-respect. There is a sense of safety and decency in everyday affairs, and one learns to put up with the slightly intrusive "nanny state" aspects of the system. It's a trade off. Everyone gets medical help. You don't have to live with the scandal of 40 million uninsured people around you, terrified of getting ill, or already sick and not getting treated. To see sick children going untreated in the wealthiest country on the world (USA) is a disgusting fucking scandal, and people like you are responsible for it. You and your ilk disgust me, piggy man.

Image
User avatar
MyOtherID
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 343
Joined: Thu 02 Mar 2006, 04:00:00
Location: Vegas, America's cloaca
Top

Re: The Economy must be doing worse than we're told

Unread postby shakespear1 » Sun 16 Apr 2006, 03:41:10

$this->bbcode_second_pass_code('', 'that rich people can afford to give up more money than poorer')

Is this supported by any data as I have been led to believe that with all the loop holes this is not true?
Men argue, nature acts !
Voltaire

"...In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation."

Alan Greenspan
shakespear1
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1532
Joined: Fri 13 May 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: The Economy must be doing worse than we're told

Unread postby kabu » Sun 16 Apr 2006, 12:51:05

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jaws', '
')You still do not understand that the nature of property is to eliminate conflicts of scarcity. There cannot be a problem of scarcity once property rights have been defined. You are still suffering from confusion.

[...]

What you are really complaining about is a problem of poverty, i.e. people unable to consume as much as they would prefer to. Scarcity is irrelevant to this issue as we will always have to deal with some form of scarcity, no matter how opulently wealthy we are.

The conflict is not over once property rights are defined. When the scarcity of certain things, such as a farm, reaches a point where people cannot realistically obtain one, these scare goods then go on from being scare to utterly exclusive, and people have no choice but do without them. When people are economically excluded from being able to obtain a sufficient means to production what they need to survive, then a problem can exists; they are put in the in the position where they have to serve the ruling class, which doesn’t always turn out to be fair.

When a tiny upper class owns almost every means of production, then there must be a lower class to produce on them. Private monopolies, unlike uncorrupt public monopolies, don't have to adhere to the good of the lower class, and it is perfectly proper for the upper class to pay the lower class as little as possible, coercing them into working long hours to produce just enough to get by, or less (poverty, which refers to needs- basic needs- not mere-wants, and thus implies far more significance than simply being deprived of what “they would prefer” to have). When everyone owns a portion of the means of production themselves, then they're more than their labour; they have capital, which cannot always be accumulated from the lower-class, especially without health-care.

And as funny as the doctor shtick is, your diagnosing me with "confusion," clarifying where you believe it necessary, rather then just focusing on the discussion is rather arrogant- not that you probably care.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Without well defined property rights we would be in a position where we would only produce what we would be able to physically defend (only what we can possess, not what we own). Since our ability to defend ourselves from aggression is limited, we would all produce less than we could under a system of secure property rights. When the aggressor is very well organized (a communist state for example) we would produce essentially nothing as it would be impossible to resist aggression.

Production might very well go down, in many cases, depending on whether or not the production of that good in itself is enjoyable. Socialism does not abolish property rights all together, however.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')There is no such as thing as "needed by the group." The group doesn't think. The group doesn't make valuations. The group doesn't know what it needs because there is no such thing as a group. There are only individuals who think and make valuations. Only individuals can know what they need. Individuals form networks of exchange in a free market to help each other produce what they need.

Every individual’s needs within a group can be scientifically assessed, and thus measured. By needs, I am referring to what people need to be healthy, that’s all. Individual “wants” are another thing all-together, which I meant to distinguish from real, verifiable basic needs. Once everyone in the group is healthy, then people can go about producing whatever they want to for the sake of comfort and luxury.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')No act of production and no private property ever harms anyone, it helps everyone to build the network of cooperation.

So long as people are not economically excluded from also owning a sufficient means of production, the privitization of any property should not harm people.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Aggression against property will only hurt.
Aggression against property will always hurt people’s feelings, at least initially.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')He did work when he cared for the welfare of the trees. If he picks only the ripe mangoes and allows the unripe mangoes to mature, then he is making a capital adjustment to the tree. He therefore has ownership rights on the tree.
He did not produce the means to picking mangos. By saying that he “cared for the welfare of the trees,” you’re glossing over what he actually did. Yes, by only taking what he needed, rather than over-harvesting, he did make a proper capital adjustment to the mango trees. You believe he deserves ownership of the trees, rather than the group, because he didn’t amuse himself by smashing all the extra mangos against a big rock? He played absolutely no part in to producing the trees that are naturally capable of supporting all 10 people. The trees were capable of supporting 10 before he got there.

The connections you’re drawing in this microcosm are... revealing.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Without this right there will be a race to pick all the fruits from the tree before the others do (the tragedy of the commons). Soon the trees will be picked clean and there will be nothing available for anyone.
There is no race because there are enough ripe mangoes for everyone! This is a preposterous assertion of the cause and effect of public property.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hat if the man in the sportscar decides that you don't really need an apartment or medicine?
He can abandon his house and medicine? Then he work overtime to obtain a sportscar, if he hasn’t one already (A sportscar not being a means of production/survival, ought not be confiscated.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou have no right to decide what someone else needs, only what you need for yourself. Anything else becomes a social war of all against all.

Wants and needs are the same.

I can see where you got me all wrong. When I refer to needs I am referring to basic needs, which are objective. Wants, on the other hand, are subjective. I have absolutely no right to decide what someone else wants; to do so would be fascist and delusional. Basic needs, being objective, are verifiable.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')First of all, "Hugo" (what a pleasantly informal name) […]
Well he’s got such a pleasant look to him when he’s not talking about the US… it also comes from hanging out in Brazil, where the populace loves him.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')[…] did not "give" the company to the landless poor.
You got me there. Muhaha! :twisted:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')It was not his company. He stole the company and destroyed it, then carved out the much less productive remains to the poor.
Much less productive for the first while, granted, but now previously landless farmers are developing small, efficient, organically grown crops, which produce far more nutrients- or capital- than cattle.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')This was a destructive act that impoverishes the country as a whole, as that company could have provided employment to many and now cannot. The country has suffered a destruction of capital.
This destruction is not cyclical, and is therefore not a problem. It can be more than made up for.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')If Hugo had instead created a free market in Venezuela then the landless poor could have started businesses that traded with this beef company. Then the poor would have accumulated their own capital while the beef company would have received valuable services. Everyone would have become wealthier. This is the nature of peaceful social cooperation.
This possibility existed before Hugo was voted in. It wasn’t realized… poverty was abundant. I think the landless poor were trying to get into the high-tech industry by developing an alternative OS, but couldn’t seem to compete with Microsoft…

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')The landless poor do not need land. The crushing majority of people in wealthy countries are not land owners, nor do they need to be in order to become wealthy. Countries with absolutely no natural resources to speak of, such as Japan, have become very wealthy by peaceful trade with resource owners. It only takes freedom.
The majority of people in wealthy countries have easy access to education and health-care, so they don’t have to work their asses off supporting their ageing parents or their diseased, dying sibling, and are thus free to pursue a good education. Without a proper education a person needs starting capital. In the case of the landless poor, they can easily become farmers once they’re allotted land. It takes more than freedom; it takes know-how and/or a means of production.
User avatar
kabu
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 316
Joined: Sun 29 May 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: The Economy must be doing worse than we're told

Unread postby threadbear » Sun 16 Apr 2006, 13:04:31

Jaws, Free markets create terrific imbalances of power, and as long as that is the case, the less powerful will be at a disadvantage. Period.

Private property is one area that can help right these wrongs, but there are many others that need to be addressed, chief among them, the closing of borders to free trade and a focus on partnerships rather than employer, employee relationships.

How does it help a tenant farmer if he is able to buy his land but then has to compete with corporate farms in banana republics? Perhaps these farmers should form a collective and work even harder? Without govt protection, they simply drive the price of their product down, when they produce more of it.

The free market particularly doesn't apply to the agricultural sector. Most govts. understand this and that's why there are subsidies, particularly in the US.

Free trade is like 'free love'. It sounds great in theory, and it IS great for the dominant player, but everyone else is just getting screwed.
User avatar
threadbear
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7577
Joined: Sat 22 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: The Economy must be doing worse than we're told

Unread postby jaws » Sun 16 Apr 2006, 23:52:20

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MyOtherID', 'B')ut this thinking would logically lead to a banishment of all taxation, and especially progressive taxation, where the rich pay more tax than the poor. The whole premise of progressive taxation is that rich people can afford to give up more money than poorer people can. That implies a judgement of relative needs has been made, do you see?

The effects of taxation are both direct and indirect. People become rich through trade. That is, other people trade with these rich people because they need services from these rich people. If you tax the rich to such an extent that they decide to stop producing, then the victims are not only the rich, but also everyone else who needs to trade with the rich. That includes many poor people.

If you complain that health care is unnaffordable, then maybe that is because health care professionals are overtaxed and do not want to trade their services with poor people for a marginally irrelevant after-tax gain.

Taxation hurts everybody, indiscriminately. There is no such thing as "progressive" taxation that leaves the poor unharmed.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') suggest to you that you spend time in places that have both systems (semi-socialist, like Australia, and rampant capitalist, like the USA). I have. I can tell you that the semi-socialist countries are more peaceful, safer, cleaner and much nicer to live in. You don't see homeless people living in parks, you have much less crime, and everyone has a degree of self-respect. There is a sense of safety and decency in everyday affairs, and one learns to put up with the slightly intrusive "nanny state" aspects of the system. It's a trade off. Everyone gets medical help. You don't have to live with the scandal of 40 million uninsured people around you, terrified of getting ill, or already sick and not getting treated. To see sick children going untreated in the wealthiest country on the world (USA) is a disgusting fucking scandal, and people like you are responsible for it. You and your ilk disgust me, piggy man.

The USA has a government-controlled healthcare market. Insurance companies are forbidden from competing with each other on what terms to offer, therefore the reason sick children go without care is because of socialist government programs. If you need see what disgusts you, you need only look into a mirror.
User avatar
jaws
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1228
Joined: Sun 24 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: The Economy must be doing worse than we're told

Unread postby MyOtherID » Mon 17 Apr 2006, 00:05:00

Jaws, your arguments are asinine, so I'll forego the pleasure of duelling with an unarmed opponent. Bye.
User avatar
MyOtherID
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 343
Joined: Thu 02 Mar 2006, 04:00:00
Location: Vegas, America's cloaca
Top

Re: The Economy must be doing worse than we're told

Unread postby jaws » Mon 17 Apr 2006, 00:09:07

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kabu', 'T')he conflict is not over once property rights are defined. When the scarcity of certain things, such as a farm, reaches a point where people cannot realistically obtain one, these scare goods then go on from being scare to utterly exclusive, and people have no choice but do without them. When people are economically excluded from being able to obtain a sufficient means to production what they need to survive, then a problem can exists; they are put in the in the position where they have to serve the ruling class, which doesn’t always turn out to be fair.

When a tiny upper class owns almost every means of production, then there must be a lower class to produce on them. Private monopolies, unlike uncorrupt public monopolies, don't have to adhere to the good of the lower class, and it is perfectly proper for the upper class to pay the lower class as little as possible, coercing them into working long hours to produce just enough to get by, or less (poverty, which refers to needs- basic needs- not mere-wants, and thus implies far more significance than simply being deprived of what “they would prefer” to have). When everyone owns a portion of the means of production themselves, then they're more than their labour; they have capital, which cannot always be accumulated from the lower-class, especially without health-care.
But once again, this is not a problem of scarcity, it is a problem of poverty. Someone owning a farm does not exclude anyone from owning property. It only excludes them from owning that particular farm unless they want to make a fair exchange for it. It is only government socialist interference that excludes people from owning property, and this problem will never be solved by more socialism.

Property can be anything. A business can do anything. It doesn't have to be a land-based business, and in fact land-based businesses are so unprofitable in the west that they are supported by huge subsidies. It makes no sense to give land to the poor to make them less poor, they will never be able to compete anyway. What they need is an export business that trades with the wealthy world in a way that maximizes comparative advantage. That will allow them to produce and accumulate capital and make them wealthier.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Every individual’s needs within a group can be scientifically assessed, and thus measured. By needs, I am referring to what people need to be healthy, that’s all. Individual “wants” are another thing all-together, which I meant to distinguish from real, verifiable basic needs. Once everyone in the group is healthy, then people can go about producing whatever they want to for the sake of comfort and luxury.

It is impossible to know what people's needs are. They are, have always been and will always be individually subjective.

You can't even claim that "food" is an objective need, since some people will find some foods to be incomestible while others will find them to be delicacies.

If you want to "scientifically" determine people's needs, then you need to give someone the power to determine everyone else's needs. But since ethics requires that the rules apply for everyone, it must mean that everyone must have the power to determine everyone else's needs. That will be chaos. We can only ethically let people determine their own needs subjectively.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Aggression against property will always hurt people’s feelings, at least initially.

It is more than hurting people's feelings. To improve society means to accumulate capital. Aggression against individual private property will destroy capital and will therefore result in the impoverishment of everyone. Surely a socialist cannot support an act that leads to general impoverishment?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')e did not produce the means to picking mangos. By saying that he “cared for the welfare of the trees,” you’re glossing over what he actually did. Yes, by only taking what he needed, rather than over-harvesting, he did make a proper capital adjustment to the mango trees. You believe he deserves ownership of the trees, rather than the group, because he didn’t amuse himself by smashing all the extra mangos against a big rock? He played absolutely no part in to producing the trees that are naturally capable of supporting all 10 people. The trees were capable of supporting 10 before he got there.
People do not produce the Earth or the rocks, but they can claim ownership of farms and metals. There is no such thing as an act of pure creation, all that we can do is re-arrange and transform the pre-existing matter of the universe. Any act of creation is an act of transformation. By selecting the most appropriate mangoes from the tree, he is transforming a naturally-occuring tree into a capital tree, thus appropriating them.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')here is no race because there are enough ripe mangoes for everyone! This is a preposterous assertion of the cause and effect of public property.Again you show that you are totally confused about the nature of property. If there are enough ripe mangoes for everyone then there is no scarcity, no conflict can possibly arise and there are no property rights involved.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')uch less productive for the first while, granted, but now previously landless farmers are developing small, efficient, organically grown crops, which produce far more nutrients- or capital- than cattle.
It is impossible for the farm to be more productive than the previous business. Since the cattlemen were profit maximizing they would have transformed the farm if they fought that small, efficient organically grown crops were a better use of the land. Since this land use had to be forced it implies that it is less efficient than the previous organization of capital.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')his destruction is not cyclical, and is therefore not a problem. It can be more than made up for.
Capital is scarce in time. By destroying this far precious time has been lost where additional capital could have been accumulated instead of destroyed capital having to be replaced. The net effect is still general impoverishment, despite not being a reoccuring destruction.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he majority of people in wealthy countries have easy access to education and health-care, so they don’t have to work their asses off supporting their ageing parents or their diseased, dying sibling, and are thus free to pursue a good education. Without a proper education a person needs starting capital. In the case of the landless poor, they can easily become farmers once they’re allotted land. It takes more than freedom; it takes know-how and/or a means of production.Capital can be imported with free trade in capital, then comparative advantage will be maximized. This is what the "miracle" economies did. All it takes is freedom. The longer you deny it, the longer people will suffer needlessly.
User avatar
jaws
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1228
Joined: Sun 24 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: The Economy must be doing worse than we're told

Unread postby jaws » Mon 17 Apr 2006, 00:18:05

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', 'J')aws, Free markets create terrific imbalances of power, and as long as that is the case, the less powerful will be at a disadvantage. Period.
Power comes from guns, not from money. If we have a system where the people with the guns can be corrupted, then people with money will have advantage. But that is not a free market, that is a socialist monopoly on security. It is socialism that creates imbalances of power. The more socialism there is, the more inequality of power there exists. The most elitist society ever was the Soviet Union. In the Soviet Union the entire population lived in destitution, while a small political elite lived like gods with access to all the luxury goods the west had, and the power to control the population like slaves.

Free markets reduce the imbalance of power. They allow the poor to improve their lives and accumulate wealth.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')ow does it help a tenant farmer if he is able to buy his land but then has to compete with corporate farms in banana republics? Perhaps these farmers should form a collective and work even harder? Without govt protection, they simply drive the price of their product down, when they produce more of it.

The free market particularly doesn't apply to the agricultural sector. Most govts. understand this and that's why there are subsidies, particularly in the US.

If a farmer can't compete with a banana producer, then he shouldn't be producing bananas. He should go into some other business that is more profitable.

You are distorting the purpose of an economy. Who is more important, a single producer or all consumers? How does it help a poor family to increase the price of bananas because a tenant farmer is too dumb to go into a different business and he needs a special interdiction on trade to protect him? It doesn't, it hurts everybody.

Governments protect agriculture not because a free market doesn't apply to agriculture, but because the structure of democratic government makes farmer lobbies comparatively more powerful than consumer lobbies, thus allowing the farmers to gain special political privileges.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'F')ree trade is like 'free love'. It sounds great in theory, and it IS great for the dominant player, but everyone else is just getting screwed.
Denying the theorem of comparative advantage is just like denying that 2 + 2 = 4. It is a sign of irrationality and confusion.

With free trade we all get wealthier. Some will get wealthier faster than others, but we are still all getting wealthier faster than we would be without free trade.
User avatar
jaws
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1228
Joined: Sun 24 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: The Economy must be doing worse than we're told

Unread postby jaws » Mon 17 Apr 2006, 00:19:28

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MyOtherID', 'J')aws, your arguments are asinine, so I'll forego the pleasure of duelling with an unarmed opponent. Bye.

It always warms my heart when people attack me instead of trying to refute my arguments because it is the most childish form of concession imaginable and it shows just how little they truly understand about the world.
User avatar
jaws
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1228
Joined: Sun 24 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: The Economy must be doing worse than we're told

Unread postby eric_b » Mon 17 Apr 2006, 06:24:25

Another topic that starts off well, then ends up in the shitter.

Congratulations tards.
User avatar
eric_b
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1174
Joined: Fri 14 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Location: us
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Return to Economics & Finance

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest



cron