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

Postby rogerhb » Tue 18 Apr 2006, 18:11:55

I'm not a fan of "limited liability companies". Why should a company not have to be fully responsible?
"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

Postby bdmarti » Tue 18 Apr 2006, 18:16:24

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rogerhb', 'I')'m not a fan of "limited liability companies". Why should a company not have to be fully responsible?


indeed, why not?

corporations may break free markets worse than anything else. Corporations can't exist without government support dictating their limited liability.
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

Postby jaws » Tue 18 Apr 2006, 18:17:24

If dead people have no rights then we can't prosecute anyone for murder, since the victim has lost all rights upon becoming dead.

People want their wealth to benefit whom they choose upon their deaths. If you forbid them from giving away this wealth, they will not create the wealth. Capital is destroyed by restricting property rights.

There is also the following major problem: if not the heirs, who deserves the wealth? You will say society, but society cannot claim it. In practice the government will get it, and they have not done anything to deserve it. Quite the opposite in fact.
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

Postby bdmarti » Tue 18 Apr 2006, 18:30:21

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jaws', 'I')f dead people have no rights then we can't prosecute anyone for murder, since the victim has lost all rights upon becoming dead.


but they were murdered when they were alive, and thus their rights were violated.
As a non-restitution crime, the prosecution of a murderer is for the protection of the rest of society, and not to protect the rights of the now dead person.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')People want their wealth to benefit whom they choose upon their deaths.


And I want a million dollars. People wanting something doesn't make it a right.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')If you forbid them from giving away this wealth, they will not create the wealth.


Nonsense. I haven't forbid them from giving away anything. They just must give it away before they die.

Mode of operation may change, but I see little reason to think a person would stop creating wealth, especially if they wanted to provide for their relatives. Knowing that one had to pass it on now rather than latter, is not a deterent to wealth production.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')apital is destroyed by restricting property rights.


We don't agree what property rights means, and thus we certainly don't agree what restricing them entails.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')There is also the following major problem: if not the heirs, who deserves the wealth? You will say society, but society cannot claim it. In practice the government will get it, and they have not done anything to deserve it. Quite the opposite in fact.


depending on your government, society can equate to government. In particular, direct democracy would have this honor. A legitimate representative republic isn't too far off, but the US isn't even close to being representative.

Unfortunatly, in order to solve the problems associated with property re-distrobution, one would also have to overcome the incredible problems of corruption within our existing government.

It is my opinion that one good way to deal with the re-distrobution of capital is to spend it all, auctioning off solid assets, on free public education such that any and all living members of society can benefit from the wealth of previous generations. obvioulsy, in auctioning off solid assets one would be trusting the markets to allocate them well. i'm more in favor of that than in setting up endless beuocracy in an effort to socialize asset after asset.
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

Postby jaws » Tue 18 Apr 2006, 18:48:41

So then we resolve the problem by constructing the will so that it takes effect the immediate instant before their death.
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

Postby rogerhb » Tue 18 Apr 2006, 19:01:26

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jaws', 'S')o then we resolve the problem by constructing the will so that it takes effect the immediate instant before their death.


So technically everyone would die a pauper. :)

Out of interest, who looks after:

disabled
mentally ill
orphans

... and who decides the age someone achieves adulthood and is this the same age for all things such as marriage, voting, etc.
"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

Postby CARVER » Tue 18 Apr 2006, 19:04:56

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jaws', 'I') don't know what point you're trying to make. Obviously providing security from aggression is necessary.


I agree that providing security from aggression is necessary, well if you want good/better results (for a majority of people) that is. But I also think it is 'necessary' to sometimes protect people against themselves, provide security from being intentionally 'tricked' (badly informed). I don't know how to call it, 'legally conned', 'legal fraud'. Something that I think requires some form of 'aggression' by the state or additional regulations on trade.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jaws', 'C')hildren 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.


So the reason is: whether someone is incapable of making rational decisions. But the criterea is probably set to being below a certain age (which probably is not universal). That is an inaccurate approach but probably efficient. It is possible that a child makes more rational decisions than its parents (caretakers), however in most cases that will not be the case. Besides being capable of making rational decisions, I would also think that limited knowledge plays a role. Without the knowledge/information there might be a lot of blanks which can lead to bad results even if the reasoning is perfectly sound.

I see this case as intervention by someone who is better capable of making (some) decisions, due to being better able to make rational decisions and/or having better knowledge. In my opinion this is similar to the case where it involves adults on both sides. Because one adult can be better capable of making rational decisions and/or have better knowledge than some other adult. If we take the criteria of age as our rough but efficient approach and be a bit more precise than age = [child, adult] and use age = [1,2,...,N], we could say that in general, up to the age of say 65, older people have the same capability of making rational decisions, but have better knowledge.

But for a group of people forming a government we can be even more accurate at measuring ability to make rational decisions and (specific) knowledge, because it is such a relatively small group (Allthough it can be debated whether our current democratic system is the best way to decide whom is best capable to do so). However just like with the child - adult (parent) case, in the case of the citizen - politician (President, minister, etc.) it is possible that the citizen is better capable of making rational decisions and/or have better information than its caretakers (government), but like with the child - adult, in most cases this won't be the case. Such citizens could also put themselves up for election if they think they can do a better job. It might however be easier for the child to get the chance to reason/debate with its caretakers (because they are its parents), than it is for the citizen to get the chance to reason/debate with the people who form the government (due to time restraints of the top government officials and the relatively huge number of citizens).
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

Postby bdmarti » Tue 18 Apr 2006, 19:58:32

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jaws', 'S')o then we resolve the problem by constructing the will so that it takes effect the immediate instant before their death.


It is my opinion that such an attempt is, and should be, a failure.

By definition, one can't know when the instant before one's death is until after the event of death has happened. As such, the execution of one's wishes is no longer a right as soon as it is possible to execute them.
Once you're dead you have no rights, and your contracts are no longer binding in such a circomstance, and since your contract can't be executed until you are dead (and incapable of having a binding contract) this effort is a failure.

So, I think if one starts with the premise that dead people have no rights, and I do start with that premise, then this idea fails.

You don't have to agree with me that dead people have no rights, but thinking they do is odd to me. they can in no way contiue to contribute to society. they can't vote, they can't produce, they can't speak...what other right do they retain after death other than property rights?

and as a side question, would any american with such a position on property rights (as to say that the dead have them, and they have the right to pass on all property to their decendents or arbitrary heirs) gladly give his land back to the decendants of the native people that once inhabited it? If some Suix or Illini or other natives came by and asked you to leave your house, would you? what if they had ample documentation to show that their ancestors had "owned" the land and used it and lived on it for generations and were forced off of it immorally by force? if one had a strong stance on inheritance rights, it seems to me that the only moral thing to do is give the land back.
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

Postby rogerhb » Tue 18 Apr 2006, 20:20:30

Swiftely moving back on topic:

How Safe is Your Job?

It also touches on the "law" jaws mentioned:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jaws', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rogerhb', 'W')hich particular economic law states that everyone will earn enough to feed themselves?
The law of comparative advantage.


Economists must be polite chaps, notice how he doesn't call people who disagree with him "fuckwits", he merely calls them "confused".

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Paul Craig Roberts', 'M')ost economists are confused about offshoring. They mistakenly think offshoring is an example of free trade bringing mutual benefit through the principle of comparative advantage. It is not. Offshoring is an example of companies obtaining absolute advantage by combining high-tech capital with low-cost labor. The gains from absolute advantage are asymmetrical or one-sided. The cheap labor country gains, and the expensive labor country loses.
"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

Postby bdmarti » Tue 18 Apr 2006, 20:21:43

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rogerhb', 'O')ut of interest, who looks after:

disabled
mentally ill
orphans

... and who decides the age someone achieves adulthood and is this the same age for all things such as marriage, voting, etc.


It is my opinion that it is the place of charity to do most of the looking after of the disabled, mentally ill, and orphans.

Having looked at the history of the subject, as societies become better educated, and when an economy is running well, these less fortunate among us are cared for better all the time by the free market.

In the US, one can see peaks in charitable services just before the civil war and again before WWI. Each time the free market was doing a good job of taking care of these less fortunates through charity, a war struck and changed the availability of time, money, and good will.

As these once prospering schools and facilities failed after wars, the state took them over and they gave rise to the institutions we have today. while we certainly have improved over the insane wallowing in their own feces as was more common in the past, these state run institutions can rarely be viewed as a success.

educating society about a problem encourages charity and it can be very effective. charity has largely addressed the problem in the past and it could do so again.

and if we stopped spending so much money fighting wars it'd be pretty easy, and I doubt there would be much fuss, over providing for the minimum basic needs for such people with tax dollars. You could feed, cloth, and house thousands of such people for years for less than the cost of a single jet or tank. not to mention absent the taxes needed for such things, people would have more disposable income, and they would likely be willing and able to spend at least some of that extra money on charitable causes.
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

Postby rogerhb » Tue 18 Apr 2006, 21:05:33

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bdmarti', 'I')t is my opinion that it is the place of charity to do most of the looking after of the disabled, mentally ill, and orphans.


Care in the community?

I don't think 'Bedlam" would work today, people won't pay to see lunatics when they already get it all on TV.
"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

Postby grabby » Tue 18 Apr 2006, 23:09:50

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bdmarti', '
') ... If some Suix or Illini or other natives came by and asked you to leave your house, would you? what if they had ample documentation to show that their ancestors had "owned" the land and used it and lived on it for generations and were forced off of it immorally by force? if one had a strong stance on inheritance rights, it seems to me that the only moral thing to do is give the land back.



Well, yyou could give it back or you could refuse to. and they could leave or they could fight.

4000 years agoo, when the Israel;ites came through and wiped out all the inhabitants of Canaan, they took the land. 400 years after that the syrians proclaimed war on David to take it back cause it was unrightfully taken. David refused, they ahd a war, lots of people died, and thesyrians were wiped out.

Israel kept the land.

Let the illini fight for it, if they win then they can have it,.

This is historical precidnce.
User avatar
grabby
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Tue 08 Nov 2005, 04:00:00
Top

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

Postby jaws » Tue 18 Apr 2006, 23:51:17

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rogerhb', 'E')conomists must be polite chaps, notice how he doesn't call people who disagree with him "fuckwits", he merely calls them "confused".

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Paul Craig Roberts', 'M')ost economists are confused about offshoring. They mistakenly think offshoring is an example of free trade bringing mutual benefit through the principle of comparative advantage. It is not. Offshoring is an example of companies obtaining absolute advantage by combining high-tech capital with low-cost labor. The gains from absolute advantage are asymmetrical or one-sided. The cheap labor country gains, and the expensive labor country loses.

Paul Craig Roberts is just a mercantilist. It pisses him off that American consumers benefit from offshore cost-cutting because it erodes the USA's relative power towards China. He worked for Reagan if you don't remember.
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

Postby JustinFrankl » Wed 19 Apr 2006, 09:27:30

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bdmarti', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rogerhb', 'O')ut of interest, who looks after:

disabled
mentally ill
orphans

... and who decides the age someone achieves adulthood and is this the same age for all things such as marriage, voting, etc.


It is my opinion that it is the place of charity to do most of the looking after of the disabled, mentally ill, and orphans.

Institutionalized charity, I think, has become a problem in society as it perpetuates the problems it attempts to address. Charity is the act of feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless. But without a real change in a person's environment, those who get sheltered and fed today (a) will need shelter and food again tomorrow and (b) the "charity" you have provided just allows more "space" in society to accomodate yet more homeless and hungry.

In this case, we are attempting to solve the problem by addressing the symptoms: homelessness and hunger. But the root causes lie deep in a society where the individual has insufficient power and control over his/her own life to secure the resources he/she needs and not what other people decide a priori that they should need to make a satisfying life for themselves.

The "disabled" need worlds and environments of their choosing and design which accomodate their disabilities. While not denying the real problems and issues the "mentally ill" must suffer through, the designation of "mental illness" is borne out of a dubious belief in psychiatry that such an illness can be addressed by treating the patient without also treating the patient's environment, akin to bailing out a sinking boat without also attempting to plug the leak. And charity is not needed to look after an orphan in a culture designed to truly value a family structure -- the orphan will be readily accepted into another family in the local community. Our culture is not people-centered, it is resource- and production-centered.

Part of the inadequate control stems from an educational system that at least in the US deters critical thinking and creative expression in favor of busywork, uniformity, and knowledge without context.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')aving looked at the history of the subject, as societies become better educated, and when an economy is running well, these less fortunate among us are cared for better all the time by the free market.

In the US, one can see peaks in charitable services just before the civil war and again before WWI. Each time the free market was doing a good job of taking care of these less fortunates through charity, a war struck and changed the availability of time, money, and good will.

As these once prospering schools and facilities failed after wars, the state took them over and they gave rise to the institutions we have today. while we certainly have improved over the insane wallowing in their own feces as was more common in the past, these state run institutions can rarely be viewed as a success.

And by "state institution", you mean not just insane asylums but the public school system as well, yes? Neither can be viewed as a success if you accept the stated reasons for their existence. "Schools are supposed to provide an education for children", with the words "good", "useful", and "well-rounded" peppered about for good measure. Bullshit. They are baby-sitting services designed to domesticate the human animal into a pliable consumer. In that respect, schools are extremely successful.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'e')ducating society about a problem encourages charity and it can be very effective. charity has largely addressed the problem in the past and it could do so again.

Again, charity can't really address the problem, because it only addresses the problem after it becomes a problem. Charity, like law, doesn't solve a problem, it only attempts to clean up after the mess has been made. Neither attempt to prevent the mess from occuring in the first place, and in many cases, create precisely the problems they try to "solve". The failure of the USA's 20+ year War On Drugs is a prime example of bogus laws creating real criminals necessitating a larger police force and legal infrastructure.

And you can't educate society about a problem without sufficient understanding of what the problem actually is. Is the problem that there are hungry people (send in food), or is the problem that there are too many people to be supported by a given area's resources (reduce the population through emigration)? Is too much crime the problem or is the problem that not enough real opportunities and access to resources exist?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'a')nd if we stopped spending so much money fighting wars it'd be pretty easy, and I doubt there would be much fuss, over providing for the minimum basic needs for such people with tax dollars. You could feed, cloth, and house thousands of such people for years for less than the cost of a single jet or tank. not to mention absent the taxes needed for such things, people would have more disposable income, and they would likely be willing and able to spend at least some of that extra money on charitable causes.
War has been more profitable than peace. More profitable, for instance, for the owners of the bullets, the tank factories, the fuel, the State, the insider traders, and for the organizations who get to cleanup and rebuild afterward. And historically, it has always been easier on a wide scale to breed hatred and fear, than community, tolerance, and acceptance. The sense of community and cooperation among the Merkin populace lasted a scant few weeks after 9/11, but years later FUD spreads easily about the (non-existent) "terrorist threat".
"We have seen the enemy, and he is us." -- Walt Kelly
JustinFrankl
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 623
Joined: Mon 22 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Top

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

Postby bdmarti » Wed 19 Apr 2006, 09:38:01

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('grabby', '
')Well, yyou could give it back or you could refuse to. and they could leave or they could fight.

4000 years agoo, when the Israel;ites came through and wiped out all the inhabitants of Canaan, they took the land. 400 years after that the syrians proclaimed war on David to take it back cause it was unrightfully taken. David refused, they ahd a war, lots of people died, and thesyrians were wiped out.

Israel kept the land.

Let the illini fight for it, if they win then they can have it,.

This is historical precidnce.


If one were of the opinion that the ability to hold and protect property was alone what made it a right to property, then that would be a fine stance to take.

Of course, such a stance seems rather mutually exclusive from the idea that inheritence is a property right, which is precisely what I'm saying.
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

Postby bdmarti » Wed 19 Apr 2006, 10:10:51

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JustinFrankl', '
')And charity is not needed to look after an orphan in a culture designed to truly value a family structure -- the orphan will be readily accepted into another family in the local community. Our culture is not people-centered, it is resource- and production-centered.


I agree that it's a shame that US culture is not more family and community centered.

Unforntunatly, I haven't designed any cultures lately, have you?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Part of the inadequate control stems from an educational system that at least in the US deters critical thinking and creative expression in favor of busywork, uniformity, and knowledge without context.


agreed. the us educational system is poor. I would suggest that in large part, this is due directly to the state control that exists. A system of vouchers like the netherlands uses that promotes competition between schools would work far better if one were to still support state funded schooling.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')And by "state institution", you mean not just insane asylums but the public school system as well, yes? Neither can be viewed as a success if you accept the stated reasons for their existence. "Schools are supposed to provide an education for children", with the words "good", "useful", and "well-rounded" peppered about for good measure. Bullshit. They are baby-sitting services designed to domesticate the human animal into a pliable consumer. In that respect, schools are extremely successful.


No, I didn't mean state institution at all in my post. I do however agree that US schools are for the most part poorly run.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Again, charity can't really address the problem, because it only addresses the problem after it becomes a problem. Charity, like law, doesn't solve a problem, it only attempts to clean up after the mess has been made. Neither attempt to prevent the mess from occuring in the first place, and in many cases, create precisely the problems they try to "solve".


This is a bogus contention. Charity is simply benevolence or generousity. Charity does not equate to ONLY the treating of symptoms of problems and NEVER profolactic attempts to address issues.

While there are many shelters and soup kitchens that address symptoms, I also know of a number of classes, and programs that help one to overcome their problems, such that in the future they won't need shelter and food kitchens.

I know a number of people that work directly in social services. Despite the incopetence and beuocracy that exists in state run programs, even they understand and have seen the evidence that shows that the more independant you can make the handicapped or mentally ill, the better off everyone is most of the time.

there are a number of programs, state funded and private, that try to find jobs, job training, and independant homes for the disabled or less fortunate.
These programs are by definition charitable, and they do more than treat a symptom.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
') The failure of the USA's 20+ year War On Drugs is a prime example of bogus laws creating real criminals necessitating a larger police force and legal infrastructure.

Agreed. the war on drugs is more of a problem than the drugs.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')And you can't educate society about a problem without sufficient understanding of what the problem actually is. Is the problem that there are hungry people (send in food), or is the problem that there are too many people to be supported by a given area's resources (reduce the population through emigration)? Is too much crime the problem or is the problem that not enough real opportunities and access to resources exist?

Such problems are not mutually exclusive, and their solutions are also not always mutually exclusive.
I would argue that the availability of a good education can go a very long way to address a great number of the problems of society, and thus providing for that education is in the best interests of society (unless you are one of the elites, then it's probably in your interst to just keep the masses happy enough not to revolt).
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

Postby Imcal » Wed 19 Apr 2006, 13:46:09

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bdmarti', 'a')greed. the us educational system is poor. I would suggest that in large part, this is due directly to the state control that exists. A system of vouchers like the netherlands uses that promotes competition between schools would work far better if one were to still support state funded schooling.

I have no idea what the Dutch educational system is like but I do know that there are state regulated educational systems that do provide good results. Finland has a handful of private schools (mostly run by religious sects), their results are no better than those of public schools. People do have some choice in their schools depending on where they live (no such luxury in the rural areas for obvious reasons) and the academic performance of the child. AFAIK the other nordic countries have a fairly similar school system. We do have our share of educational issues but those state schools are fulfilling their basic function of hammering in the basics pretty well. No illiteracy for all intents and purposes and a relatively safe learning enviroment is not so bad when you read the news from abroad.

The fact that the vast majority of the population has gone through a nearly identical elementary/secondary schooling has its downsides but it is a big cohesive element in the society. Being able to assume a certain level of basic competence and ability is not a small matter for employers and higher education planning.
User avatar
Imcal
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Sat 14 Jan 2006, 04:00:00
Location: Finland
Top

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

Postby bdmarti » Wed 19 Apr 2006, 15:18:14

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Imcal', '
')We do have our share of educational issues but those state schools are fulfilling their basic function of hammering in the basics pretty well. No illiteracy for all intents and purposes and a relatively safe learning enviroment is not so bad when you read the news from abroad.

The fact that the vast majority of the population has gone through a nearly identical elementary/secondary schooling has its downsides but it is a big cohesive element in the society. Being able to assume a certain level of basic competence and ability is not a small matter for employers and higher education planning.


I agree that our state run schooling in the US is better than no education at all, and it's even better than the state run education in some other countries.

Can state run education be run better than that in the US? I'd certainly say it can. Certainly Northern European and Japanese students and some others do quite well compared to americans on tests and standards.

In the US, teachers get hired, teachers get tenure, and theachers are then hard to get rid of. Teachers recieve unfunded mandates from the federal government and if they don't have tenure they can lose their jobs if their students don't produce, and this often leads to teaching students to take a test or outright cheating by the teachers.
Tenured teachers can be unmotivated because they have little to lose despite their students results, and untenured teachers can be motivated to do the wrong thing because the system pushes them in that direction.
Tenured teachers can make a lot of money for doing a poor job, while
new teachers struggle to make a living even if they do a much better job.
This isn't a system that makes much sense.

This is in contrast to a system where there is competition. If parents, and to some extent students, get to decide what schools and what teachers they have, then the good teachers will be in demand. The good teachers will get more students, and likely more money.

What also happens in a free market, where parents can move their students and the money that goes with them around, is you see more variety in possible education tracks. There are more extra curricular type things, more shop type classes and more trade and vocational schools.

The market is likely to adapt to make changes and accomidate demands faster than government bodies can.

in addition, despite the average consumer not being the best informed individual in the world, it doesn't take a genious to know if your child is learning and happy or not. when such evalutions are left in the hands of the parents and students, the consumer is greatly empowered and big money interests and corrupt government loses power.

So, while I don't say a government can't supply a nice education. I do think that allowing a consumer to determine what constitutes a "good" education is a very powerful and desireable thing. If I want to be a carpenter, and there are no building or wood working classes in government school...then it sucks to be me. Same thing for the mechanically inclined, or those with musical interests, or agriculture or any number of things. In a voutcher system (at least a well run one) it should be trivial for new schools or classes to open up to meet the demands of the populace. If there were enough students lined up, and enough money associated with said students, and there weren't insane unions to join and accredication to go through, you'd likely see master carpenters and certified mechanics taking time to teach classes on the side because it would be more profitable than doing their regular work.

bottom line: a state run school is capable of delivering a good education in theory, and many people will do fine even coming from the US public schools, but it is my opinion that the freedom to choose education paths would be better for everyone.
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

Postby rogerhb » Wed 19 Apr 2006, 17:54:55

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('grabby', 'W')ell, yyou could give it back or you could refuse to. and they could leave or they could fight.

.....

Let the illini fight for it, if they win then they can have it,.

This is historical precidnce.


Wow! "might is right", the human project is coming along nicely, no sign of progress anywhere.
"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

Postby kabu » Wed 19 Apr 2006, 18:08:59

Jaws, Jaws, Jaws… I’d never heard someone refer to being stoned as being intoxicated, until now. Have you ever smoked up?

Why did you say that I’d conceded to your points after stating that responding to them would “take me forever to write” and that I would “continue this later,” even providing you with a two-part explanation of my reasons? I had clearly stated my intention of not stopping at such banter. As selective as that quote was, my whole post was right above it, so who would be foolish enough to buy your response to it? You’d better start equivocating, and you’d better start equivocating fast (but at least do not be so dry about it)!

And by the way, just because someone’s argument is in trouble doesn’t mean that that person’s conclusion is wrong; it simply begs that you better articulate your position. Not that it could have been expected of you to accept my concerns based upon faith. It certainly was silly for me to think you’d edit your argument. Thus, the only thing you were justified in saying was that there was no reason to take my post seriously. It would have been more enjoyable if you could have playfully bantered back. It seems as though if you and I were both kids, then we wouldn’t be playing together, no matter how hard our parents wanted us to.


Basic needs:
Presumably, you’ve indicated, out of omission, an agreement on the objectivity of needs- or “basic needs” (as you’ve required me to clarify). This falls in line with being dry.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Note that I have never and will never claim that people's basic needs should not be met.

I know. You just believe that capitalism is the best economic means to meeting everyone’s basic needs, which is the chief goal of socialism. Additionally, you also believe that neither a state nor any individual be responsible for meeting anyone else’s basic needs. This could too work out fine if charity was always shown to those impoverished.

So it is up the individual, and the individual alone, to produce enough to be healthy (parent-child relationships aside?). How does capitalism deal with the parent-child relationship, anyhow, without being socialistic? Are there times, then, when is someone responsible to provide for another’s basic needs, without some sort of preexisting trade agreement? Should such a thing be forced upon parents?

The affects of aggression against private property:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')I defend freedom and property because I have seen the irrefutable proof that this is the best way for everyone to have their basic needs, as well as their higher-order luxury needs, met.

Here’s a funny thing about evidence: it’s verifiable, by definition. Where’s the evidence? Where’s God? I do not see it in your link, just as I do not see the irrefutable proof of God in The Bible. How about you cite the specifics so that I can see it better?

You are not backing up your claim whatsoever. If you can’t back up such an enormous claim, then reduce the size of the claim so that your argument is rational.

I will not dispute the part about luxuries, by the way, because Socialism’s goal is to provide for the basic needs of all. I see luxuries as material waste- sadly replacing social and spiritual fulfillment- but I digress.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')The critical error in your reasoning is believing that society should "collect and redistribute scarce goods". This assumes that goods are a naturally occuring phenomenon and that meeting basic needs is only a process of distributing these naturally occuring goods evenly. This is completely wrong. There are no naturally-occuring goods. Every good that we consume must be produced by a human being.

I am aware of this. Remember all that I wrote about mangos? I may not have used the same words as you exactly, although I do remember utilizing the term “capital-mango”… anyhow, I am in agreement with you here, regardless of how you mistook my wording.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Socialist redistribution does not involve "collecting" but it involves "taking" with the use of force.

I am not sure what profession you are speaking from, but colloquially speaking, the verb “to collect” suffices. We both know what “tax collectors” are, so why are you bickering about this?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')This has consequences on how much is produced. People will not produce a good if they know it will be taken from them.
They will if they’re forced to, but that’s slavery, and socialists, unlike Aristotle, are not after this.

Either we keep what we produce, trade what we produce, or have what we produce taken from us. We can also be given what others have produced. All societies involve a combination of what I just wrote, plus whatever else that’s not on my mind at the moment, and people are still producing to this day.

Socialism doesn’t imply that all goods we produce are taken; it states that the amount taken from people is proportionate to meeting the basics needs of everyone in that socialist society. If people know that the state takes the first 50 of the goods they produce in a month, and people want to have a savings of 200 of those goods by the end of the month, then people will simply produce 250 of those goods; leaving them with 200 goods, plus whatever the state gives back to them (in the form of other goods). In other words, people start looking at the net income of their production.

To look at a single good as if it weren’t part of a bigger picture is to avoid the issue at hand.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')ggression against capital does not have to result in its destruction, especially if the aggressor has just as much know-how as the receiver. But even if it does, as it did in Venezuela’s case, unless the society being transformed has absolutely no buffer between general stability and general impoverishment, there is a margin-for-the-destruction-of-capital before impoverishment is reached. If there is no buffer, then a government shouldn’t interfere, lest lives may be lost, until the transformation can be appropriately, humanely managed.
There is no margin at all. Capital is wealth. It is one and the same. Destroying capital immediately reduces wealth.
Thank you for stating the obvious. That was a valid statement but irrelevant to my point. How has your equating the words “wealth” and “capital” affected my point?

Let me give you an example to work with. If you have one billion dollars, and I take way one million, are you now living in poverty? No, because you have at least a 999 million-dollar buffer between being wealthy and being impoverished; you have a margin of economic-security. Has your wealth been reduced? Yes. Are you impoverished? No.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')This assumes that its previous owner was all-knowing, like the God that I do not believe in.
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.
Fair-enough. I was actually being facetious when I said that, and also believe that it assumes the previous owner knows more than the state and its chosen man about to take over. I don’t believe this assumption is sensible, however, because not all more-knowledgeable people are business-oriented but can still collaborate, as scientists, economists, and mathematicians, with people that are (and this is why they didn’t own the business before). It is possible that the advisors that had taught the previous owner on how to build up and run his or her business, now they desire to do the same for the state-sanctioned businesses.

And even if these more-knowledgeable people were also business-oriented, they may have decided to pursue capital in the form of superior knowledge, rather than developing a means of production oriented around their field-of-expertise. And maybe now they’ve changed their mind, because they truly believe in socialism and want to make sure everything works out in the beginning.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')For example when a government begins a program to take long-established farms and redistribute them to less productive workers
The new workers could very well be the same workers that had just been working there, so they’d certainly have the know-how. Additionally, they would now have a much greater share of the now sub-divided farm’s production, because they now own the means of production (no owner’s cut taken from their production); thus, their income is increasing on a per good basis, rather than on the per month basis that many South American workers are paid with, hence they have an economic incentive for being more productive.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')other farms will realize the danger and stop investing in the capital value of their farmland.
This would only happen if their farms operations didn’t conform to socialistic procedures. Otherwise, this short-term lack of investment would have to be absorbed by the margin of economic-security.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Thus any socialist program to take and redistribute is destroying the total amount of goods produced, thus resulting in general impoverishment, and actively causing people's basic needs to go unmet.
Taxation may (see above) destroy and discourage production, to a degree, but why to the point of general impoverishment? General impoverishment is the bad, I agree, but we don’t have to be as productive as possible to escape its clutches; although this would certainly generate a larger margin of economic-security, so I see it as a good secondary objective for socialism, behind taking care of the impoverished.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Either way, regardless of what I’m arguing, I am with the moderates and am content with a mixture. I only believe that a socialist side of an economy ought to take precedence over the capitalist side, where as you’re arguing for an economy that’s purely capitalistic.A mixture of poison and medicine is still poisonous. A moderate amount of evil is still evil.

I am glad that you have revealed your simple-mindedness by dichotomously distinguishing socialism from capitalism, as you would poison from medicine, or evil from good. Maybe you should go back to working on supporting the main conclusion of your argument (socialism leads to poverty), before you make such sweeping statements.


The Causes of Poverty:
So you agree with me on the indirect relationship between poverty and scarcity? You didn’t respond to my proposition…

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'R')ight, a capitalist’s solution to this trap is to give this person a loan (imported or domestic). However, like I said, individuals also require the know-how to properly manage this capital; and this can be extremely hard, if not virtually impossible, to get (especially when such individuals are suffering from the ills of poverty). If they get the loan when they don’t have this know-how (capitalism would not prevent this, because such arrangements can be freely made), then their situation becomes even more impoverishing. Thus, they are stuck in poverty, and they might as well head back to that sweatshop so that they are at least just hungry, not starving-to-death.Comparative advantage still applies. Know-how is a form of capital that can be imported. If taxation is low, then highly-skilled people from wealthy countries will move to poor countries and help them set up the new industries.
Know-how, if importable (not everyone can learn what they might need to), takes time to receive and capital to afford. Since we are discussing those that are poverty-stricken, going to a private school or getting a private teacher is out of the question. How many bankers and advisors are willing invest their capital into ignorant, poverty-stricken individuals, so that these individuals can obtain a business? These poverty-stricken people would only be able to pay them back if they were successfully transformed into successful, productive businessmen with businesses. This seems like a naïve proposition to me.

If you ask me, these highly-skilled people, that are just going after lower taxes anyway, have no capitalistic reason- unless they are fools- to not just adapt these impoverished individuals as workers for the industries that they are about to set up. Maybe these new businesses will end up just becoming more sweatshops, depending on the economical and political restrictions in these poor countries (it was low taxes that brought them here, right)? Why bother with the high-risks of investing in the incompetent and impoverished, so that they can own and run a business that was bought with their lent capital, rather than owning all means of production themselves; and than trading what’s been produced, using their obviously low-cost labour, with businesses that are already willing to do more business with them?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')eople will not take out a loan for a good they cannot use. I don't take out loans to buy heavy lifting equipment, because I have no use for it. But if I need some heavy lifting done, I can hire a construction company and they will bring their equipment and their staff to run it.
It is illogical surmise general rules of human psychology that are based only upon your own personal experiences. It might be helpful for you to start paying attention to more of the little guys, seeing how many people take out loans for starting small businesses, only believing they already have enough know-how, not knowing that they do, and then loosing them. Overconfidence is one aspect many people run into on a regular basis. If the business isn’t successful, people are left with the debt (sole-proprietorships and partnerships), and are in a worse off position. And this is in first-world countries, where people are supposedly more educated (certainly often not the case, if you ask me).


The implications of capitalism/socialism on the island:
You never commented on my island of capitalism scenario. I take it you do not disagree with its credibility?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')e’s only transforming naturally-occuring mangos into a capital mangos, and thus appropriating the mangos, not the trees. Yet he’s claiming the trees as his, because he came upon them first, and slept beside them for a few years. But you’re saying that Capitalism does not allow for him to claim these trees as his property, because he didn’t actually better them; he just came upon them before everyone else?
The trees are necessary to produce the mangoes, thus they consist the technologically relevant unit of property. It is impossible to transform the trees without interfering with his property rights on the mangoes.
Doubletalk helps neither of us, Jaws. Yes, the tree is relevant to and necessary for the growth of mangos. Nobody is trying to “transform” the trees, the only thing they are transforming are unpicked mangos into picked mangos. Quit trying to convolute the issue; he did not produce any capital trees, so he has no rights on them.

I can see you’d just end up getting shit-kicked on a deserted island after trying to claim all the trees as your own for absolutely no logical reason.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')nd speaking of starving to death, what happens in your "Robinson Crusoe" scenario when the dude washes on shore with a broken leg that both guys agree will never really heal, especially because both fellows calculate they’ll never get off the island? How do comparative advantages help the cripple when he can only manage to knock down 1 mango/day or catching 1 fish every 2 weeks? It cost Robinson 14 mangos to catch one fish! Friday still gains by meeting Robby half-way, trading him 10 mangos for every fish, but how the fuck does that help the crippled Robinson? How the fuck’s he going fair off of one mango/day, 1/10 of a fish/day, or 1/10 of a fish and 2/7 a mango/day!? How the fuck can they both have a good time, enjoying the rest of their lives? Communism, that’s how! Well… so long as Friday lives longer than Robinson.
[…]
Comparative advantage still applies. A wounded Robinson is much less productive than a healthy Robinson, but he still has a relative advantage in the production of one good over another. He is then benefitting from having Friday to trade with. If Robinson were on his own he would have no hope to survive. But with Friday around, he can focus on his most productive activity and trade with Friday. He may not have enough to survive still, but he is nevertheless better off than he would have been on his own.
How is he better off eating 1/10 of a fish/day, as opposed to 1 mango/day? Do I have to change it from 1 fish/week to 1 fish/ month, or tell you that one 1/10 of a fish is less nutritious than one mango, for you see the point?

Even if Friday resigned himself to a trade that yields the smallest amount of profit (7mangos/fish), Robinson still isn’t getting more nutrients out of at 1/7 fish than he will out of 1 mango. Robinson can only be better off after receiving charity. Comparative advantage does not apply. Capitalism does not help Robinson in his unfortunate situation, because even Robinson’s survival is not an investment.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')To continue to survive he will require an act of charity from Friday. This is not communism because Friday's property is not being aggressed on. Friday is simply gifting Robinson with the food he needs to survive. It is purely voluntary. However should Robinson turn out to be an ungrateful jerk, Friday could stop providing him with these gifts.
Yes, and this is what my microcosm is trying to show: capitalist economies do not insure that the unfortunates’ basic needs are met. Robinson can die even though Friday is obeying the law.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Should a communist system be established to ensure that Friday is forced to provide for Robinson, then Friday would attempt to evade the system by hiding what he produces and producing nothing to be taxed. Then Robinson would starve and there would be no purpose in having a communist system any longer.
Exactly! Robinson only dies if Friday’s greed turns him into a criminal. No system is impervious to crime. If Robinson obeys the law, they both live. Economic laws are what we are discussing.
User avatar
kabu
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 316
Joined: Sun 29 May 2005, 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