That was simply the best fucking post I've read in ages on WF. +rep to you good sir.
Attention Guerilla (and the politicalized horde).
- Thread starter Refrozen
- Start date
Economics is a social science, it is a study of incentives, action and consequence. It is value free (similar to the beer drinking example, where the wealthiest man responds rationally to decreased incentives, posted above)
Politics and philosophy are value laden.
But don't these incentives, actions and consequences depend upon a structure of values? If the guys above were living in a remote tribe where the concept of individual ownership didn't exist then they would act differently.
Or if the wealthiest man had a different set of values he may have came back with some heavies, beat up the other men, took what cash they had and told the bartender to give him free drinks or he'd get the same.
A social science which is value free?! Lol.
I'm sure you PHD economists will figure it out at some point....
Nobody on this thread could accurately defined Keynesianism if it hit them in the face. Wait, perhaps my memory from months ago will come back....
"Socialism!"
"Communism!"
"Government death camps!"
Logical arguments if ever there were any....
Those that can, shut up and do.
Those that can't blame the government.....
I'm sure you PHD economists will figure it out at some point....
Nobody on this thread could accurately defined Keynesianism if it hit them in the face. Wait, perhaps my memory from months ago will come back....
"Socialism!"
"Communism!"
"Government death camps!"
Logical arguments if ever there were any....
Those that can, shut up and do.
Those that can't blame the government.....
Yes, praxeology is value free.
I can.
Those that second hand deal in ideas...
There is an important delineation to make here between knowledge and values.
If we increase supply against somewhat fixed demand, then we know that prices fall. That's value free. Maybe we want higher prices, maybe we want lower prices. But if you do A, you get B. That is what economics tells us. It cannot tell us that such an action is preferable. When we do that, we're imposing our own values on the action. And all value is subjective, so it's not meaningful in any scientific sense. Unless we were to say, "Under LazyHippology we should do X, but under Guerillogy we want to achieve Y."
We would have to do that for every individual, and for every circumstance, since each moment in time is unique.
Right, but that has nothing to do with economics. All economics can hope to do, is to explain the consequences of action, not which actions to take. We have to reverse engineer the consequences through our values (which again, are different person to person) in order to choose what we believe is the best possible action.
Everyone acts rationally (acts in what they believe is their best interest). Even someone committing suicide, believes that killing themselves is preferable to living. Since we all operate from imperfect knowledge, all of our choices are differentiated. If we all had a perfect understanding, there would be no need for order, because we would all act in synchronicity.
That however, is a Utopian pipe dream (the Utopian dream of planners, socialists and the pro-government toadies). There is always some man, or group of men, who believe that they are fit to order everyone better than that society can order themselves. Hayek called this the pretense of knowledge[1]. The false belief that someone can know the unknowable.
Those folks are who rule us.
[1] http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/1974/hayek-lecture.html
Hayek gave the Pretense of Knowledge speech for his Nobel acceptance. It's a good read, and related to the video in the OP.
I like the barstool econ post. But keep in mind, there was no problem with the rich guys paying a greater percentage. Everyone was still happy at that point. The problem occurred when the middle class complained that their share of the discount was smaller. However, that is not what has happened in reality. In reality (over the last 30 years) every penny of that discount has all gone to the wealthy. Over the last 30 years the rich have gotten richer and the rest of us have not moved economically. The gap in wealth between the rich and the rest of us is greater now than it was during the great depression.
And the problem with a "free market only" approach is that it is not possible. It is like the perpetual motion machine. It is nice in theory but not possible to create. You want to get rid of government influence, believing that will create a free market, but what about other influences? If the government was completely out of the picture we would still have the super rich, and corporate collusion, and foreign entities all influencing the market.
And the problem with a "free market only" approach is that it is not possible. It is like the perpetual motion machine. It is nice in theory but not possible to create. You want to get rid of government influence, believing that will create a free market, but what about other influences? If the government was completely out of the picture we would still have the super rich, and corporate collusion, and foreign entities all influencing the market.
The reason why people have not moved economically, is because they demand that their government provide things for them, which can only be accomplished through economic intervention, and so they pay for it by having a less robust economy, and less opportunities to climb the social ladder.
Blaming the wealthy (class warfare) is and always has been scapegoating. The myth about the rich staying rich, and the poor staying poor isn't backed up by statistics. On the contrary, there is a lot of class movement, and the middle class is much better off today than they were 20 years ago, and they will be even better off 20 years from now.
That presumes however, that the rapid socialization of the global economy by various corporatist states is slowed down or even reversed, because we know from the Soviet and communist models, that the greater the state's share in the economy, the more impoverished the people start to become.
Nonsense. The bulk of human activity occurs in free markets. Posting on this forum is a free market. Surfing the internet is largely a free market. Choosing what to buy at the grocery store, or whether to spend time with friends, is all voluntary and market based activity. What you eat for dinner, what clothes you wear. What music you listen to. All voluntary action.
Is there such a thing as a perfect free market? No. But that's a strawman argument. People say, the Utopian free market is unattainable, so we should settle for government intervention. But free marketers are not Utopians. They understand that markets are dynamic, that they succeed and fail. The Utopians are the ones who think that government bureaucrats and elected politicians can make perfect decisions for society.
Have you ever considered the irony that people vote for politicians in a democracy, and then the politicians claim to have better knowledge than the people who elected them?
The issue is not just the government, but only a fool would not see that the government is the most expensive and violent intervention into the market. Say what you will about the super rich, but they usually get rich by serving their customers well. People might hate Bill Gates, but a lot of them happily bought Windows.
Yes, corporate collusion happens under the state as does rich people gaming the system. Why? The state is setup to cater to special interests. It's role is to serve not the voter, but whoever can buy influence. When we have an adult understanding of the role of the state, then we can see it for what it is. That is what the enlightenment thinkers like Jefferson, Franklin, Montesquieu, Adam Smith etc understood and we have forgotten.
There cannot be a corporation (a legally chartered fictionally entity) without a state. So if you don't like corporations, know that they would not exist in a free market. It's the great irony of progressive anti-capitalists that they want the state to stop exactly what the state creates and serves. It's like asking a rapist to babysit your children.
Voluntary actions do not equate to a free market. I chose my clothes, but maybe Target drove out local competition from the market because they were willing to take a temporary loss.
You say as long as government is influencing the market then it is not free. I agree. But I am saying there are many more influences than just the government. If you demonize the government and remove their influence then all the influence lies in the hands of the wealthy. You still do not achieve the "free markets" that you want. You simply increase the influence of the rich.
Don't get me wrong. I am all for capitalism. And I also think our (US) government is corrupt. But you claimed that any government regulation = socialism = no free markets. And I am saying don't use the false argument of "free markets are better for the world, therefore we should get rid of all government regulation". We would not have free markets, just more market influence for wealthy.
Not true. Free markets keep the wealthy in check as many of the banks would be failing right now without government intervention. It is because of government intervention that the wealthy become wealthier and suck up real assets, compliments of the American sheeple. All bankers understand this, that's why they love the government. It's just the sheeple who haven't caught on because they're too busy watching football.
When we are forced to use gangbankster FIAT notes as LEGAL TENDER by law you know there is something fishy going on...
Read history and see the first thing that gangbanksters always do to make a profit. They create a central bank and flow easy money to the sheeple/government to create a boom and then suck up the assets. Lending to governments is one of, if not, the most lucrative industry on earth, especially when most of it is fake money. Throw a war in here and there for good measure.
Looking forward to the day when I'm a gangbankster and can sheer all the sheeple who will openly and actively fight in my favor because of how illiterate they are.
That is exactly what a free market is. Where exchanges and relationships are voluntary.
That has nothing to do with markets. That is a complaint about aggressive business strategy. If their prices are too high, people will compete. If they are willing to run at a temporary loss to win market share, more power to them. Anyone who has boot strapped a business knows that this is usually required to get a new firm off the ground.
One should be happy for Walmart. They have more products and lower prices. They out compete other people, and any time the consumer gets a lower price, they are able to buy more and increase their overall satisfaction. Low prices = good.
That's true. I'm simply saying the obvious. That the government is the biggest intervention. By leaps and bounds.
It's not about demonizing the government. It is about being an adult about reality and not pretending the state is something it isn't.
You're wrong that all influence lies in the hands of the wealthy without a state. Without a state, only the market can define what wealth is. In a market, the consumer has all of the power. The state is the tool of the wealthy who would abuse their position, because they are the ones who benefit from regulation and licensing which creates monopolies, they are the ones who dictate who gets bailed out, which businesses get tax breaks, and which competitors are shut out of competition.
The state is a mechanism to serve the anti-social. It does not serve the little guy. Its role is to act as the enforcement arm of those with means and power or those who would use politics to acquire means and power. It is a myth that the government protects people from the rich. Many wealthy people become wealthy by serving their fellow citizens with goods and services. But the few who want to cheat, use the power of the state to force people to buy products and services, to limit their capacity to compete, or directly tax their labor to redistribute to these people in the form of subsidies.
You want capitalism with limitations.
Every government, everywhere is corrupt. There is no such thing as an honest politician, or a government by and for the people. Again, these are fairy tales and fantasies told to school children by public sector employees in the education system. That in fact is the purpose of a public education system (see John Taylor Gatto). It is to indoctrinate people into thinking what their rulers want them to think.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ogCc8ObiwQ"]YouTube- Broadcast Yourself.[/ame]
It's true. Regulation doesn't just control the firms already in the market. It also raises the barriers to entry for new competitors. Which firm can afford to meet regulatory compliance, the startup or the corporate behemoth? The behemoth of course. So they hire people to meet regulatory demands, then those people go through a revolving door between the private and public sectors, making sure that no genuine competition from the little guy ever emerges.
I don't use socialism as much as a pejorative, but in its real economic sense. A system where private property ownership does not exist. If there is eminent domain, then private property rights do not exist. If you cannot bear arms, then private property rights do not exist. If you can be forbidden to grow pot on your own land, then you don't actually own your land (control it). If you cannot smoke pot, or marry your gay friend, or have to participate in a military draft against your will, then you don't actually own yourself. Someone else has veto power over what you can do with your own life.
Again, you keep missing the point. In a free market, people who are successful serving other market actors, accumulate more capital in the form of profits, and enhance their reputations as agents to do business with. Yes, that gives them more power. BUT, it is contingent upon doing a good job, and in a free market, without legal and regulatory monopolies, if they start to treat customers bad, if they start to sell crappy products, if they trash their reputation, someone else comes along and takes their power away from them.
That's what capitalism is. A system where you are rewarded for success, and punished for failure, creating the incentive to...
TA DA
BE SUCCESSFUL!
And that is why socialism doesn't work, because the incentive under socialism, is to...
TA DA
FAIL!
When you incentivize failure, it is only a matter of time until the economic system collapses.
If you're afraid of wealthy people, get your grind on. You too can be wealthy on the internet with little start up money, and no professional credentials. Or you can just blame everything on wealthy people and do nothing.
You slipped a murky little example in there. What they want is the blessing of the state. They're not prohibited from wearing wedding rings, having a wedding ceremony, living together, or receiving all the legal benefits of marriage in the form of a civil union.
What they want is the mere word, plus the process from a justice of the peace. I agree with your other examples, since you could face imprisonment for drug offenses, and possible legal repercussions for opposing a draft, but the gay marriage thing is a non-issue.
I suppose you also think abortion bans also mean state control over the body? How is abortion not secondary control over a child's body?
The issue is, the state has no place in the personal contractual relationships between private individuals. 200 years ago, marriage was always a private and social function. It did not require licensing. Consider, a license is the permission to do something not allowed, so if you need a license to get married, then this means to get married without the permission of the state, is illegal. That's an outrageous premise.
I don't want to get into a public abortion debate. If you want to PM me about it, I'm happy to discuss it privately.
Then your problem is with the licensing process, not gay marriage, and I would agree with that broader assertion. But that's not how you phrased it.
Not looking for a debate, but I'll send you a PM.
I think my phrasing was very clear. Without self-ownership the premise of freedom is a farce.
It's not you I was concerned about. Replied.
Thanks for the debate, but we seem to be going around in circles. I'll say one last thing on the subject. (I definitely do not want to side track into gay marriage or abortion.)
But what I am saying is that we can never reach the point of a truly free market as you described. And if all we do is remove government regulations, then we are left with equally strong forces that will continue to prevent a "free market". But those remaining forces work almost exclusively for those individuals with the most influence. We are still not free.
I think you are missing my point. I completely agree with your assessment of a free market. I think we actually agree on a lot of things.
But what I am saying is that we can never reach the point of a truly free market as you described. And if all we do is remove government regulations, then we are left with equally strong forces that will continue to prevent a "free market". But those remaining forces work almost exclusively for those individuals with the most influence. We are still not free.