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 » Tue 18 Apr 2006, 00:32:51

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rogerhb', 'I')n true capitalism:

1. are monopolies inevitable?

2. are cartels permitted?

3. are workers' unions permitted?

If you wish to learn about how a free economy functions, then I can recommend the very comprehensive Man, Economy and State with Power and Market by Murray Rothbard. If you don't have the time to read a 2000 page book, then I recommend reading Economics for Real People, which is a much shorter and simpler version of the same theory.
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 » Tue 18 Apr 2006, 00:33:08

:twisted:

Jaws, if I can name at least one fallacy in every section of your rebuttal- even though I just finished smoking a big joint and am utterly ripped- then your argument is in trouble.

I will continue this later next week, however, because I have to get up in 7 hours to go work, and lots of work I will do. Plus it'll take me forever to write something like this. I'm slow enough a writer as it is. Being smoked up makes it worse.

I'm not trying to be mean. I'm just trying to encourage you to double-check your reasoning within the next two days, adding to your argument, so that the forum users viewers get more than an example of how not reason.
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 » Tue 18 Apr 2006, 00:35:21

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kabu', 'J')aws, if I can name at least one fallacy in every section of your rebuttal- even though I just finished smoking a big joint and am utterly ripped- then your argument is in trouble.

Please. If you're going to try to pretend that my argument is incorrect without providing any refutation as well as mentioning that you are intoxicated, don't expect anyone to take you seriously.

I will answer to you the same way I answered to myOtherId. You are using the most childish form of concession: "You're just wrong, goodbye!"
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 » Tue 18 Apr 2006, 00:45:00

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jaws', '.').. then I recommend reading Economics for Real People, which is a much shorter and simpler version of the same theory.


Thanks for the link.
"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 CARVER » Tue 18 Apr 2006, 10:08:50

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jaws', 'B')ut the rules about property rights are universal, egalitarian laws. ... Freedom works.


Well you could have all kinds of universal egalitarian laws, but since people are not equal, that will mean that some people can become 'victims' of such rules, because they would have done better without it. What is 'fair' only exists in our heads. We do not remove some sort of ability. What we do is we will use aggression against anyone who does something that we have decided on to not be allowed to do freely (without punishment). That can be just about anything for which you can gain a lot of support and little resistance. If that does not bring the desired results it is likely that support for it will disappear and resistence will grow, if they trace it back to those rules (which does not have to be correct).

Let's say we have a free market and a rule which states: "everyone has the right to own property created by their work free from aggression by anyone." Now we have a guy who is smart and tries to take advantage of the stupidity/ignorance of others. He gets them to voluntarily sign a contract or participate in an exchange which will most likely not turn out to be in their best interest. But they have signed it voluntarily, so it is their own fault and now they have to do what the contract says, not doing so would be considered an act of agression, which we do not allow. They agreed to the terms themselves. When they realise they made a mistake they will want to beat him up for it and will try to get back what they exchanged by force if necessary. But since we don't allow all that, we make it easy for people to get others to voluntary agree to these exchanges (How many people actually read the 20 pages of fine print). Of course those people are not likely to trade with you again if you do such a thing, but there are always others in some other place that don't know you and your history, so that does not have to be much of a problem.

Freedom works, the more freedom the better. For whom? For young kids for example? Do we let them decide themselves whether they go to school or not? What about drug addicts, who are asking others to stop them when they will try to get another shot? For those people for example, more freedom doesn't give good results for themselves as well as others. That is my main concern: how do you protect people from themselves? You can say everybody is free to participate in an exchange, but what results do we get then? What if some people start to give free samples of crack, or some other addictive drug? Nobody forces people to try it, but you can bet there will be some that will try it, especially those who are easiliy manipulated. That's why we have all kinds of regulations. What would happen if we do away with those regulations, or do we keep those regulations in the free market system you support?

I'm not saying that I want excessive state aggression, allthough what I find 'appropriate' you may see as 'excessive'. Am I some sort of tyrant for oppressing the children, forcing them to go to school, when they would choose to play outside if I let them decide? Or is this an exception, because children don't know/understand what is in their best interest? Unlike every adult?
User avatar
CARVER
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 396
Joined: Thu 19 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Holland
Top

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

Unread postby bdmarti » Tue 18 Apr 2006, 10:29:17

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jaws', '
')No, it simply assumes that the previous owner was the person most qualified to know. Since they were running a successful farming business, and the government and landless poor were not, this assumption is the most sensible. If someone else knew how to run a farm better than this owner, then he could have made a purchase offer for a value greater than the current owner was currently realizing from it, thus the current owner would have been changed to the person most qualified to know.


This statement is completely insane.

I could be the worlds greatest farmer, and I could go door to door to every other farmer in the world that owned a farm and offer them more per year then they currently earned running thier farm and not a one of them has to accept my offer.

Maybe you'd say they are foolish for not accepting such an offer, but the fact is the market doesn't promise me any land or a farm on it's own.

No land owner EVER has to accept my offer to buy his land. End of story. I can be shut out of ever producing anything because of other's arbitrary reasons for not wishing to sell me their property.

To claim that the current land owner is clearly a better farmer than me simply because he currently owns the land is to shove one's head up one's behind.

Owning land or any capital isn't evidence that you can use that capital better than any other person on earth.

If you start out life owning 10,000 acres of land and have a billion dollars in the bank, you can run the the most piss poor farm ever, and you'll never have to sell to me: the worlds greatest farmer with no money.

Since you don't have to sell to me, but I want to eat, perhaps you will be gracious enough to let me run your farm for a meager salary. This is what can and does happen all the time.

Since the better job I do, the more YOU the rich guy profits, I'll never catch up to you in wealth, and why would you ever sell to me, when you can profit from me and still own the land at the same time? The answer is, you wouldn't ever do such a thing.

I'm a big believer in personal property, and I'm a big beleiver in a worker getting everything they earn.
I'm not a beleiver in corporations, or even inheritance. Corporations should all be cooperatives, such that the workers are liable and also such that the workers profit from their work. To allow a perpetual aristocracy to always "own" the corportaion/capital and remain wealthy for doing nothing is atrocious.

Take Paris Hilton for example. Here's a ditz that produces nothing and yet has millions of dollars to spend. (examining only her family's wealth and her ability to spend it)
Is it morally correct that such a moron should have more money to spend than literally thousands of workers in her father's company make in their lifetimes? Those workers produce wealth, and Paris spends it. Not to mention the poor pay plenty of taxes to support a police and court system that perpetuates Paris's "right" to "own" all that wealth that is produced by others.

This is the unfortunate consequence of long term capitalism. The smart, or the initialy wealthy, will almost always be able to outpace the poor in the begining, and once started, they and their offspring can continue to outpace the poor forever. So the rich will get richer the longer the system goes, and the poor will get poorer, depite what their competences might have earned them on a level playing field.

All that being said, I think we'd be a whole lot better off if 99% of all government interference in the market were to dissapear while at the same time, we taxed the hell out of rich people when they died, redistribute that wealth via national education system, and at the same time chage all corporations into partnerships with liability and profit in proportion to ownership, and not limited to initial investment.
User avatar
bdmarti
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed 12 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Top

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

Unread postby bdmarti » Tue 18 Apr 2006, 10:57:21

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('CARVER', '
')Freedom works, the more freedom the better. For whom? For young kids for example? Do we let them decide themselves whether they go to school or not? What about drug addicts, who are asking others to stop them when they will try to get another shot? For those people for example, more freedom doesn't give good results for themselves as well as others. That is my main concern: how do you protect people from themselves? You can say everybody is free to participate in an exchange, but what results do we get then? What if some people start to give free samples of crack, or some other addictive drug? Nobody forces people to try it, but you can bet there will be some that will try it, especially those who are easiliy manipulated. That's why we have all kinds of regulations. What would happen if we do away with those regulations, or do we keep those regulations in the free market system you support?


The whole thing can be summed up with 2 simple concepts:
Personal Responsibility and Liability

It is not, and should not be, the responsibility of the state to protect people from themselves.

Children should be the responsibility of their parents, and not the responsibility of the state. The state should determine an age at which a child can be considered personally responsible for all that they do, and such an age should likely carry with it all the "benefits" and freedoms of adulthood.

As for concepts such as drugs: If one knowingly distrubutes a poison to one who does not know it is a poison, then one is liable for any and all damages and should be held accountable. If a drug dealer knowingly gives some crack to a child and they subsequently incure massive healthcare and rehabilitation fees, the drug dealer should be liable for those costs.
If instead the drug dealer were to distribute some crack to a person who has signed a waiver or otherwise acknowledged that they intend to knowingly ingest a poison, then the drug deaerl is not, and should not be liable. they should be perfectly free to sell poison to moron's all day.

Given a competent court system with the primary responsibilty of extracting restitution, rather than foolishly locking people up as punishment, one could expect the market to largely self-regulate itself as dangerous activities would incur too much restitution.
This of course requires a competent court system, and I'm not suggesting that we have one.
User avatar
bdmarti
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed 12 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Top

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

Unread postby CARVER » Tue 18 Apr 2006, 12:03:37

bdmarti, If those 'morons' would have had the money to pay for the restitution, they would not have stolen my bike to buy drugs. Good luck plucking feathers from a bald chicken.
User avatar
CARVER
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 396
Joined: Thu 19 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Holland
Top

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

Unread postby emersonbiggins » Tue 18 Apr 2006, 12:27:46

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bdmarti', 'I')f instead the drug dealer were to distribute some crack to a person who has signed a waiver or otherwise acknowledged that they intend to knowingly ingest a poison, then the drug deaerl is not, and should not be liable. they should be perfectly free to sell poison to moron's all day.


I disagree somewhat. A person, of legal age and consent, should not have to be informed at every juncture about the consequences of taking part in an activity, nor should that responsibility be placed upon the dealer. It's tantamount to putting a surgeon general's warning on just about everything. Should a bartender have to inform every one of his patrons about the consequences of drunk driving? Maybe have "Blood on the Highway" playing 24/7 on one of the flat screens, acting as a stern warning? It's absurdity on it's face. If society cannot agree on a baseline of knowledge that an 18 or 21 year old should have (and apparently we can't), then many of us are truly clueless when we speak of "taking personal responsibility" for ourselves.
"It's called the American Dream because you'd have to be asleep to believe it."

George Carlin
User avatar
emersonbiggins
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5150
Joined: Sun 10 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Dallas
Top

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

Unread postby Kez » Tue 18 Apr 2006, 14:25:57

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bdmarti', 'T')ake Paris Hilton for example. Here's a ditz that produces nothing and yet has millions of dollars to spend. (examining only her family's wealth and her ability to spend it)

Is it morally correct that such a moron should have more money to spend than literally thousands of workers in her father's company make in their lifetimes? Those workers produce wealth, and Paris spends it. Not to mention the poor pay plenty of taxes to support a police and court system that perpetuates Paris's "right" to "own" all that wealth that is produced by others.


Is it morally correct? Hmm I guess not. Is it morally correct to beat her dad over the head and tell him he can't give a single penny to whoever he wants to? Nope. Is it morally correct to tell him that he can't rent a room out for free tonight, even though he owns it? No.

So where do you draw the line? To attempt to draw a perfect line is impossible. Either people have the right to do what they want with their money and things, or they don't. The government already taxes all sorts of properties and transactions, and the wealthy pay a lot more. This is their attempt to make the game of life more fair, but it will never be fair because of the extremes out there like the head of Exxon making a billion dollars and Paris Hilton doing her thing.

There are spiritual solutions to economic problems, but the world is becoming less spiritual and more materialistic with every passing day.
Kez
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 218
Joined: Fri 06 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: North Texas
Top

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

Unread postby jaws » Tue 18 Apr 2006, 14:35:16

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('CARVER', 'L')et's say we have a free market and a rule which states: "everyone has the right to own property created by their work free from aggression by anyone." Now we have a guy who is smart and tries to take advantage of the stupidity/ignorance of others. He gets them to voluntarily sign a contract or participate in an exchange which will most likely not turn out to be in their best interest. But they have signed it voluntarily, so it is their own fault and now they have to do what the contract says, not doing so would be considered an act of agression, which we do not allow. They agreed to the terms themselves. When they realise they made a mistake they will want to beat him up for it and will try to get back what they exchanged by force if necessary. But since we don't allow all that, we make it easy for people to get others to voluntary agree to these exchanges (How many people actually read the 20 pages of fine print). Of course those people are not likely to trade with you again if you do such a thing, but there are always others in some other place that don't know you and your history, so that does not have to be much of a problem.

People take risks. Sometime these risks don't work out the way they expected, and they come out the loser. The scenario you spelled out has a widespread real world counterpart: state lotteries. People buy lottery tickets all the time and never win anything. Over the whole of their life they will be net losers except for a select few, and the state. That doesn't matter, they keep taking the deal, and they do it over and over and over again, and you can't stop them.

Taking a deal that makes you a loser is a basic right. You can't judge what people's level of risk-preference is.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')'m not saying that I want excessive state aggression, allthough what I find 'appropriate' you may see as 'excessive'. Am I some sort of tyrant for oppressing the children, forcing them to go to school, when they would choose to play outside if I let them decide? Or is this an exception, because children don't know/understand what is in their best interest? Unlike every adult?
Children have a caretaker, the adult parent. When you force children to go to (a government-approved) school, you are challenging the authority of the parent. The parent may prefer a form of education that is better adapted to his child's need, but instead is forced to send the kid to the Big Box School to waste his time, and is also forced to pay for it despite its inferior quality and higher cost.

So yes, you are a tyrant.
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 » Tue 18 Apr 2006, 14:45:59

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bdmarti', 'T')his statement is completely insane.

I could be the worlds greatest farmer, and I could go door to door to every other farmer in the world that owned a farm and offer them more per year then they currently earned running thier farm and not a one of them has to accept my offer.

Maybe you'd say they are foolish for not accepting such an offer, but the fact is the market doesn't promise me any land or a farm on it's own.

No land owner EVER has to accept my offer to buy his land. End of story. I can be shut out of ever producing anything because of other's arbitrary reasons for not wishing to sell me their property.

One, you're assuming that farming is the only form of productive work. It isn't, in fact it's a diminishingly important part of the productive economy. And two, you're assuming that the law of supply and demand no longer applies. At some sufficiently high price, someone will accept your offer to buy his land.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')o claim that the current land owner is clearly a better farmer than me simply because he currently owns the land is to shove one's head up one's behind.

Owning land or any capital isn't evidence that you can use that capital better than any other person on earth.

Profitably operating this capital is.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')f you start out life owning 10,000 acres of land and have a billion dollars in the bank, you can run the the most piss poor farm ever, and you'll never have to sell to me: the worlds greatest farmer with no money.

I can lend you the farm and make much greater profits from the higher productivity. Or, if I have a billion dollars in the bank, the farm is for me a recreational estate and thus I don't care about its productivity. It is more valuable for recreational purposes than for farming.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')ince the better job I do, the more YOU the rich guy profits, I'll never catch up to you in wealth, and why would you ever sell to me, when you can profit from me and still own the land at the same time? The answer is, you wouldn't ever do such a thing.
You are once again assuming the law of supply and demand is not applicable. The better job you do as a for-hire farmer, the more likely another farm is to make you a higher offer. Then your current employer has to raise your salary at the expense of his profits in order to retain you and keep the farm productive. If you become so expensive that it is not really profitable to keep you, he'll sell you the farm.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')I'm a big believer in personal property, and I'm a big beleiver in a worker getting everything they earn.
I'm not a beleiver in corporations, or even inheritance. Corporations should all be cooperatives, such that the workers are liable and also such that the workers profit from their work.
Inheritance is a full right of personal property. If people don't have the right to give their property to whomever they wish, their freedoms are limited. Then they will actively attempt to evade this limit during their lifetime, and the result will be destruction of capital.

Corporations are cooperatives. Employees can own as many shares in the corporation they work for as they want. If they choose not to do so, because it is not sufficiently profitable for them, you have no right to force it on them.
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 CARVER » Tue 18 Apr 2006, 16:46:19

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jaws', '.').. Taking a deal that makes you a loser is a basic right. You can't judge what people's level of risk-preference is. ...


What I meant was, that it is made very easy to 'trick' people into making a bad deal, because they didn't fully realize what was in the deal and so they were not aware of the risk. Still their own fault, but that is no reason to support this kind of behavior of offering such deals. If they would not be protected by the state, then they might be more carefull to offer such deals of which they are well aware that is most likely that the ones being offered the deal won't get from it what they think will get. They would be more carefull to make sure that the ones whom they offer the deal are fully aware of what it really means, because if they don't that could have nasty consequences when pissed off people who took the offer and now realize what it means and that they were 'tricked', come back to take back what they think belongs to them. Since like you say both sides gain from those trades, it can't hurt that the people being offered a deal are being made fully aware what they are getting themselves into. Of course you also need to protect the ones offering the deal from those who mean ill. So better leave it up to a judge than letting them fight it out themselves.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jaws', 'C')hildren have a caretaker, the adult parent. ...


That was what I meant, me as the caretaker. Is the caretaker a tyrant? Is the caretaker allowed to 'oppress' the children (to some degree)? Do I understand from this that this is an exception to the rule and that the caretaker is still allowed to do that in the free market system that you are explaining here? If this is an exception, then what are the reasons/criteria why this specific group is allowed to be 'oppressed' by a certain group of people (parents)? And if there is one exception, could there be more, like: could adults have a caretaker as well, like in the form of a government that 'oppresses' them to some degree?
The Future of Money
User avatar
CARVER
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 396
Joined: Thu 19 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Holland
Top

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

Unread postby jaws » Tue 18 Apr 2006, 17:01:43

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('CARVER', 'W')hat I meant was, that it is made very easy to 'trick' people into making a bad deal, because they didn't fully realize what was in the deal and so they were not aware of the risk. Still their own fault, but that is no reason to support this kind of behavior of offering such deals. If they would not be protected by the state, then they might be more carefull to offer such deals of which they are well aware that is most likely that the ones being offered the deal won't get from it what they think will get. They would be more carefull to make sure that the ones whom they offer the deal are fully aware of what it really means, because if they don't that could have nasty consequences when pissed off people who took the offer and now realize what it means and that they were 'tricked', come back to take back what they think belongs to them. Since like you say both sides gain from those trades, it can't hurt that the people being offered a deal are being made fully aware what they are getting themselves into. Of course you also need to protect the ones offering the deal from those who mean ill. So better leave it up to a judge than letting them fight it out themselves.
I don't know what point you're trying to make. Obviously providing security from aggression is necessary. That doesn't mean we can't have competing providers.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hat was what I meant, me as the caretaker. Is the caretaker a tyrant? Is the caretaker allowed to 'oppress' the children (to some degree)? Do I understand from this that this is an exception to the rule and that the caretaker is still allowed to do that in the free market system that you are explaining here? If this is an exception, then what are the reasons/criteria why this specific group is allowed to be 'oppressed' by a certain group of people (parents)? And if there is one exception, could there be more, like: could adults have a caretaker as well, like in the form of a government that 'oppresses' them to some degree?

Children aren't being oppressed. They are incapable of making rational decisions. So we have a universal law: all children must be in the care of an adult parent.

Adults can't have a caretaker. The government is not a caretaker, the government is not anything. Adults get together and form a government. Your law that all adults are in the care of the government is not applicable, since it says that all adults are in the care of some group of adults. It is not a universal law. If a group of adults forms the government coalition for rationality, can they become "caretakers" for U.S. senators? Not in practice, only the U.S. senators can command other adults. The rule is completely unjust.
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 bdmarti » Tue 18 Apr 2006, 17:30:23

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('CARVER', 'b')dmarti, If those 'morons' would have had the money to pay for the restitution, they would not have stolen my bike to buy drugs. Good luck plucking feathers from a bald chicken.


that's fine, but neither a law against drugs, nor socialism itself solves the problem of theft.
User avatar
bdmarti
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed 12 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Top

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

Unread postby bdmarti » Tue 18 Apr 2006, 17:43:21

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('emersonbiggins', '
')I disagree somewhat. A person, of legal age and consent, should not have to be informed at every juncture about the consequences of taking part in an activity, nor should that responsibility be placed upon the dealer. It's tantamount to putting a surgeon general's warning on just about everything. Should a bartender have to inform every one of his patrons about the consequences of drunk driving? Maybe have "Blood on the Highway" playing 24/7 on one of the flat screens, acting as a stern warning? It's absurdity on it's face. If society cannot agree on a baseline of knowledge that an 18 or 21 year old should have (and apparently we can't), then many of us are truly clueless when we speak of "taking personal responsibility" for ourselves.


I'm not suggesting we put a label on everything, nor am I suggesting it's the government's place to follow citizens around like they are puppies and tell them "NO" when they are about to do something that might be harmful.

However, I am capable of seeing a difference between not preventing someone from smashing themselves in the fase with a hammer, and in requiring that a person have certain levels of knowledge before allowing them access to certain things. For instance, I think it's a bad idea to sell TNT at the corner store, and weapons grade plutonium is probably not something the average citizen should have. Should drugs fall into this category? I think that a solid case can be made that they should. Damages caused by ignorent morons could be shown to excede the possible resitution paid by those same morons, and in the end society would have been better off educating those morons prior to allowing them access to such harmful things. Can I provide data that proves this, NO, but I think a case can be made anyway. Feel free to disagree...we're not likely to see legalized drugs in the US in our lifetimes anyway.
User avatar
bdmarti
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed 12 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Top

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

Unread postby bdmarti » Tue 18 Apr 2006, 17:48:21

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Kez', '
')Is it morally correct? Hmm I guess not. Is it morally correct to beat her dad over the head and tell him he can't give a single penny to whoever he wants to? Nope. Is it morally correct to tell him that he can't rent a room out for free tonight, even though he owns it? No.

So where do you draw the line? To attempt to draw a perfect line is impossible. Either people have the right to do what they want with their money and things, or they don't.


I dissagree.

I think it is possible to draw a line, and that line happens at death.
Dead people should have no rights. They're dead.

While I could see exemptions for homes and limited personal property, a dead person's capital should be redistributed to the society that protected and allowed that inidividual to accumulate that capital.

do whatever you want with your wealth while you're alive. give it all to your kids, I don't care. In the end, you can't beat death. Someone rich will die eventually, and at that time the capital will be filtered down to society in general, rather than perpetuating aristocracy forever.
User avatar
bdmarti
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed 12 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Top

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

Unread postby rogerhb » Tue 18 Apr 2006, 18:01:57

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bdmarti', 'd')o whatever you want with your wealth while you're alive. give it all to your kids, I don't care. In the end, you can't beat death.


That's what wills are for. On the event of my death give x y and z to a b and c.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bdmarti', 'S')omeone rich will die eventually, and at that time the capital will be filtered down to society in general, rather than perpetuating aristocracy forever.


Death duty did this dramatically in England. Vast estates had to be broken up to pay the dues. It was enacted to do precisely what you describe.
Last edited by rogerhb on Tue 18 Apr 2006, 18:06:30, edited 1 time in total.
"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 bdmarti » Tue 18 Apr 2006, 18:04:58

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jaws', '
')One, you're assuming that farming is the only form of productive work. It isn't, in fact it's a diminishingly important part of the productive economy. And two, you're assuming that the law of supply and demand no longer applies. At some sufficiently high price, someone will accept your offer to buy his land.


You're missing the point. As a farmer with no capital, how am I supposed to offer a sufficiently high price?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')o claim that the current land owner is clearly a better farmer than me simply because he currently owns the land is to shove one's head up one's behind.

Owning land or any capital isn't evidence that you can use that capital better than any other person on earth.

Profitably operating this capital is.


no, it isn't. it is not evidence of any such thing.
I said "better" than.
Just because you can earn a profit doesn't imply that I couldn't earn more of a profit, nor does it in any way facilitate my ability to take over your business and make that extra profit.



$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')I can lend you the farm and make much greater profits from the higher productivity. Or, if I have a billion dollars in the bank, the farm is for me a recreational estate and thus I don't care about its productivity. It is more valuable for recreational purposes than for farming.


either way, you don't have to sell me the farm.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou are once again assuming the law of supply and demand is not applicable. The better job you do as a for-hire farmer, the more likely another farm is to make you a higher offer. Then your current employer has to raise your salary at the expense of his profits in order to retain you and keep the farm productive. If you become so expensive that it is not really profitable to keep you, he'll sell you the farm.

Excuse me? Why am I being sold a farm? This is a strange leap to take.
If my salary demands are so high that my employer can't afford ME, and in addition he can't find anyone else to run his farm profitably, and if in addition to that my employer doesn't just want to sit on his farm for arbitrary reasons, and if in addition to that I can magically come up with enough money to make an offer on my employer's farm such that MY offer excedes all other offers, he may, just possibly sell me his farm.
that's a long way from my automatically buying a farm.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Inheritance is a full right of personal property. If people don't have the right to give their property to whomever they wish, their freedoms are limited. Then they will actively attempt to evade this limit during their lifetime, and the result will be destruction of capital.

And from what authority can you claim that inheritance is a full right of personal property?

You are free to do what you wish so long as you are free to do anything, and this equates with your life span. Being free to do what you wish when you are dead is a bizzare concept that has been ingraned into people's consious as the 'right' thing merely by precedent.

Taking from the dead in no way at all interfears with any living beings right to do whatever they wish with their property. It in no way limits any living beings' freedoms.

by all means explain to me how capital will be destroyed by people attempting to avoid what may happen once they are dead.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Corporations are cooperatives. Employees can own as many shares in the corporation they work for as they want. If they choose not to do so, because it is not sufficiently profitable for them, you have no right to force it on them.

Corporations are NOT equatable with cooperatives.
Yes an employee can have as many shares as they like, and I'm not suggesting that we force employees to buy shares, but I am suggesting that liability is proportional and not limited per share.

I am just of the opinion that employees would be more likely to shoulder responsibility and thus own shares and operate as a cooperative rather than people blindly owning shares and eventually being held liable for the actions of others were corporations to operate in the manner I suggest. sorry for the confusion.
User avatar
bdmarti
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed 12 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Top

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

Unread postby bdmarti » Tue 18 Apr 2006, 18:10:27

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rogerhb', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bdmarti', 'd')o whatever you want with your wealth while you're alive. give it all to your kids, I don't care. In the end, you can't beat death.


That's what wills are for. On the event of my death give x y and z to a b and c.


I'm aware of what wills are for and I think the concept is unjust. To allow the dead to dictate how we the living should use capital once they are no longer here to contribute to our society is a very strange thing to me.
User avatar
bdmarti
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed 12 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Return to Economics & Finance

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest



cron