Originally posted by Randomthots: On a side note: ert, I find in you perhaps a kindred spirit. I, too, am a driver educated beyond what is useful for this profession.
It's a dangerous thing. Endless highways give one entirely too much time to ponder and philosophize.
LOLS. A little eduction is a dangerous thing.
According to conservative "libertarians", Our learning too reed and rite and filosophize is an example of a market ineffeciency created by do-gooder liberals meddling in the market place. The "free" marketers would have us laborers dumb and uneducated, educated only enough to read the road signs, as Hitler said about the Russians living in the Russian territory Germany ocuppied during WWII. Education beyond the necessities of their jobs makes the workers restless. Keep them stupid, poor, docile -- and highly profitable for the "free" market educated investor class.
"There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that if you just legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, that their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous their prosperity will find its way up and through every class that rests upon it." William Jennings Bryan 1896
Posts: 165 | Location: Memphis | Registered: 08 August 2006
Originally posted by Ronald Rutherford: ert, let me have you read the following post here.
Thanks. I will when I get some free time. It appears informative.
"There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that if you just legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, that their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous their prosperity will find its way up and through every class that rests upon it." William Jennings Bryan 1896
Posts: 165 | Location: Memphis | Registered: 08 August 2006
ert: This is true because the transactions are on a small, local level and very tranparent to the community. If they behave unscrupolously they will be ostracized; there is a profit motive to be honest. WHen the market gets big enough that people can hide their unscrupolous behavior, they will have a profit motive to be unscrupolous and will respond accordingly.
And you think that with a free press and word of mouth that these problems of asymmetrical information can not be overcome in the market?
quote:
Now we are getting somewhere. You acknowledge that there is a role for goverment in the markets. Then the argument becomes will that role of gvmt favor the advantage of a certain group in society or favor the advantage of all groups of the society. i.e. A social contract; a civil govmt of the people by the people for the people - not just for people with large investments at stake, who legitamately need govmt protection to remain provitable.
Only to the level that governments can enhance the markets. Should not the government be out of the business of favoring one group over another? Set the rules and be blind to the groups?
quote:
There are CEOs of corporations operating in Iraq that are quit willing to shoot people (or have mercenairies shoot them) for violating their property rights and to protect themselves from being ripped off to the tune of millions.
There is violence on both sides there. How many people are kidnapped for ransom there?
quote:
I think economist refer to this as the "farm worker paradox." i.e. Why do some jobs so important to society (e.g. sanitatino workers) pay so little.
Simply there is a large pool of workers that can do that job. Thus an abundance of workers. And what is the marginal benefit to society of one sanitation worker?
quote:
As polycarp said, where does this come from. Furthermore, when upper management whines about how much union blue collar workers make compared to them (the wages are too close in value), is that jealously also?
You may say that but you know what I will say?
Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005
Originally posted by Ronald Rutherford: Should not the government be out of the business of favoring one group over another? Set the rules and be blind to the groups?
When in human history has government ever been blind in favoring one group over another?
Monarchs favored the nobles. The Czars favored the landowners over indentured serfs, the Pharaohs favored themselves and the priestly classes.
Dems and Republicans favor corporatists and the 400 families of the American ruling elite. Give me a break Ronald. Favoritism abounds depending on just who is in power.
Sociology recognizes this as a basic fact regardless of the ideological niceties that abound in all cultures to support ruling elites, including the those in the "democracies" or defunct communist states.
It's when the elites reach beyond the capabilities of their societies to support their demands that societies begin crumbling and social structures begin disintegrating either through over-extention of military capabilities or a lack of resources to maintain the structure of the society because of elite excessive demands.
Perhaps our collapsing bridges, strained military and inability to come to grips with ecological disasters in the making are symptoms of this very occurrance beginning to take shape.
"Free market ideology" in support of a status quo taking precedence over what's actually so is a pretty narrow view given the challenges we face. The same alleged "free market" that has lead to huge challenges currently before us!
It's time to find something that actually works. Economically, culturally and ecologically.
On Global Warming: "Will new knowledge save us, or will the boom-time breeders, the know-nothings, and the life-is-a-big-party types bring us down after all?" - William Calvin, Phd., Neurobiologist/Climate Researcher. "The Ascent of Mind" - Bantam
Retired Monk "Ideology is a disease"
Posts: 3412 | Location: denver co | Registered: 17 April 2007
Yes, ert you are a dreamer... And I see that I may not be able to explain well enough that societies do survive and thrive without a Police State as well as Governments. And these societies in their basic form must use cooperation to accomplish tasks. Trade I consider an extension of this cooperation that humans naturally tend toward.
quote:
Things that stateless societies can not provide.
You may notice that your list relies on property rights. And this is the most important job for a government-even libertarians believe this. Earlier in this thread I posted the following: Cooperation versus Competition. This gives a clue as to how humans are basically good and want to cooperate but there is still an element that is the "Scorpions" in our society that do try to take advantage of the situations.
quote:
Trade did indeed occurred. And trade is occuring now too in China. In fact, it is occuring so well that Bill Gates wants the Chinese government to intervene in the "free" market, and make it a little less free so he is more free to get the profits that the Chinese free trading software priates are currently getting by making free with software that Microsoft did not freely develope. Are you following me? Turgid prose be dammed, I'll continue. This chain of events is the market progessing toward a greater degree civilness, and in turn creating a society where it is profitable to creat cutting edge affordable software. ...
Obviously property rights are not strictly enforced in China. Maybe if they spent more energy in developing their own software than ripping off Microsoft they may actually do better. What right do the Chinese have for Microsoft's property?
Sorry, I see why you use the analogy of the Vacuum (say vacuum in the mirror 3 times) but you have proven why it is a vacuum unless you think that the Scorpions in our society would gain the upper hand.
I guess people are finding that telecommunication products in the wireless market are very good. He must be doing something right for others have lots of other technology that could counter his...
Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005
Sorry ert for so much homework here, but I am seeing more angles. Including the water rights issues in Montana even before statehood. The PDF report: Wading into MONTANA WATER RIGHTS may provide some useful background into rights before States. Just the history portion up to page 11 seems relevant. (Water Use Rights).
Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005
Originally posted by Ronald Rutherford: And you think that with a free press and word of mouth that these problems of asymmetrical information can not be overcome in the market?
No, I don't. What free press are you talking about? NPR perhaps? That 50 cents you pay for a copy of USA Today doesn't come close to covering the real cost of the newspaper. (Actually, I just pulled that out of the air. I know that magizine subscriptions do not cover the cost. National Review relies on wealthy donors, who want a certain economic point of view to be dressed up and put in the proverbial store window of ideas, to remain in operation.) The press is beholden to their advertisers. They lose an advertiser and they lose profits, and may even face bankruptcy. Not a good climate for hard hitting journalism.
Furthermore if you buy bad hamburger at the local branch of the mega-chain grocery store, do you know which one of the three giant USA meat packing conglomerations it came from? No, the package just says hamburger. Do you know which mega food chains buy from which companies? No. The source of products is very easly hidden from customers (and in some cases from health inspectors). Furthermore even if there is a label on the meat package, the packing company can open up the jpeg editor on the label-printing machine and change the brand name to something else and rook a whole bunch of new suckers.
quote:
Only to the level that governments can enhance the markets.
Enhance them for whom?
quote:
Should not the government be out of the business of favoring one group over another?
Yes, that's why I am a Liberal.
quote:
Set the rules and be blind to the groups?
That is a wonderful utopian idea. But do you really think that that is what conservatives do? If so, you are decieved my friend. Do you think all those P.A.C. money gones hanging around K Street (and their friends over at the conservative D.C. think tanks) are there to see that the rules don't favor anyone?
quote:
There is violence on both sides there. How many people are kidnapped for ransom there?
Yes, there is violence on both sides. Violence from the corporations that want to do business and violence from the people who who don't like to see their country being denuded.
Aren't the ransomers are just exploiting the free market for ransomed dignitaries. Maybe that's a free market the govnmt should interfer in. "We're here from the govmt; we're here to help." The most terrifing words in the Iraqi language.
quote:
quote:
I think economist refer to this as the "farm worker paradox." i.e. Why do some jobs so important to society (e.g. sanitatino workers) pay so little.
Simply there is a large pool of workers that can do that job. Thus an abundance of workers. And what is the marginal benefit to society of one sanitation worker?
Touche! But you realize of course that you have just pointed out a market failure. A big glaring example of the marketplace failing to allocate resources most productively. Just because a skill is rare does not mean it is important to society. But according to the market it should be. The lean-mean, all-knowing marketplace says Miss Spears is more important to society that sanitation workers, when logic tells us otherwise. This is the farm worker paradox. Not just why does one job pay better than another but why does the market fail so badly in this situation.
Consider: Society desparately needs top flight teachers but the market fails to reward them (unless the govmnt or teacher's unions gets involved), while at the same time ridicously rewarding Spears and others who are only superficailly needed.
"There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that if you just legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, that their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous their prosperity will find its way up and through every class that rests upon it." William Jennings Bryan 1896
Posts: 165 | Location: Memphis | Registered: 08 August 2006
Originally posted by Ronald Rutherford: And these societies in their basic form must use cooperation to accomplish tasks.
Yes, it's called govnmt. Big, ugly, intrusive govmt. And some of society's members ain't gunna like the instrusion necassary to insure cooperation to accomplish said tasks.
quote:
You may notice that your list relies on property rights. And this is the most important job for a government-even libertarians believe this.
But property rights for whom? When UAW workers build a Hummer, when it rolls off the assembly line, who's property is it? Is it exclusively the property of the CEO? Should the value go exclusivily to him?
quote:
Obviously property rights are not strictly enforced in China.
Au Contraire, mon amie. A little socialist French for you there. Au Contraire, my good friend. In Chi. Com. some property rights are very strictly enforced for some people. It's a communist country, and some people there are more equal than others.
quote:
Maybe if they spent more energy in developing their own software than ripping off Microsoft they may actually do better.
Yes, I think too their market would function better with more rationally arrived at govmnt intervention.
quote:
What right do the Chinese have for Microsoft's property?
They have "squatter rights." I think Marx called it "primitive accumulation." The rest of us call it theft.
quote:
but you have [not] proven why it is a vacuum unless you think that the Scorpions in our society would gain the upper hand.
I do. "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of tyrants" (Thomas Jefferson). Freedom doesn't stay free. Freedom ain't free.
quote:
I guess people are finding that telecommunication products in the wireless market are very good.
I went completely wireless years ago. No phone lines in my house. I read somewhere that developing countries are bypassing the wire stage and going straight to wireless.
quote:
He must be doing something right
He is. It's called a monopoly. And it's right as rain for him the owner. Monopolies are extremely profitable.
quote:
for others have lots of other technology that could counter his...
Maybe, but the Mexican people will never get to use it - unless they sneek acrossed the desert on a dark night and enjoy the fruits of some good-old, all-American intrusive govmt.
"There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that if you just legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, that their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous their prosperity will find its way up and through every class that rests upon it." William Jennings Bryan 1896
Posts: 165 | Location: Memphis | Registered: 08 August 2006
Good summary. But your argument falls apart when society gets big enough and complex enough that people can hide their actions. These people may not necassarily be "scorpians." Their actions may even be dressed up in noble causes. Remember the use of the White Man's Burden dogma to justify exploitation? Cortez wasn't exploiting the Incas and the Aztecs, he was taking Christianity to them. These "scorpions" may not only be able to hide their actions from others but may even be able to hide the negative results from themselves, and convince themselves that they are good people.
All of your free market examples illustrating the primitive nobleness and cooperation of man are examples of small community markets. Your thinking on free markets reminds me of liberals who love the idea of the noble savage and of communists who romantize the working class.
quote:
And lastly humans are basically cooperative beings
Yes, it's called monompolies. And only govnmt can rein them in.
quote:
and thus cooperation results [in] better returns than competition or in other words playing the Scorpion in trade will not likely result in very high returns.
Again this is monopolies. But more importantly, isn't this the communist arguement? That compeition is destructive to markets? and that cooperation and central planning is better?
"There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that if you just legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, that their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous their prosperity will find its way up and through every class that rests upon it." William Jennings Bryan 1896
Posts: 165 | Location: Memphis | Registered: 08 August 2006
Again this is monopolies. But more importantly, isn't this the communist arguement? That competition is destructive to markets? and that cooperation and central planning is better?
Yes, ert. But forcing cooperation is not cooperation by its very nature. Only through voluntary agreements that allow the benefit for both parties.
Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005
Again this is monopolies. But more importantly, isn't this the communist arguement? That competition is destructive to markets? and that cooperation and central planning is better?
Yes, ert. But forcing cooperation is not cooperation by its very nature. Only through voluntary agreements that allow the benefit for both parties.
I would submit to you that both the far left and the far right are guilty of forcing cooperation. Totaltarianism can blow in from either directin.
"There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that if you just legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, that their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous their prosperity will find its way up and through every class that rests upon it." William Jennings Bryan 1896
Posts: 165 | Location: Memphis | Registered: 08 August 2006
On an overview you may be right. But I am hard pressed to see anarchist trying to force too much cooperation. Thus I tend to be more worried by Socialism/Communism than what your so called Libertarians may think up.
By the way did you watch Desperate Housewives last night. They had the classical Libertarian/Authoritarian conflict between two of the housewives. The Gay Couple got the upper hand though in the end...
All of your free market examples illustrating the primitive nobleness and cooperation of man are examples of small community markets. Your thinking on free markets reminds me of liberals who love the idea of the noble savage and of communists who romantize the working class.
ert, That may be the case, as one of our resident nihilist does talk about the noble savages. But I was only to prove that trade does exist out side of "Police States" and even government. Even today markets are formed before the regulation catches up. Before Politicians get a piece of the pie! LOL
Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005
Ron, I was just standing outside having a smoke sans jacket (pretty cool outside) after having read the last several posts in this thread and I had a, well... random, thought.
You contend that markets develop naturally without the aid of a state. I agree. I could cite any number of examples to support that fact. But then the Lib/Con philosophy goes even further. It asserts that this "natural" market, the Free Market, is the most desirable state of affairs.
Where on earth do you get that notion? In no other sphere of human activity or existence are we satisfied to take the natural state of affairs as presented to us. We don't huddle in caves for shelter, we build houses. We don't, in the main, forage and hunt for food, we engage in agriculture. We dam rivers and build roads and extract useful things from nature and then improve on them.
So why should we be content to take the naturally developed market as sacrosanct?
Multi-million dollar CEOs and higher share prices do not create prosperity. Rather, prosperity creates multi-million dollar CEOs and higher share prices --- and more a--holes!
Posts: 50 | Location: Kansas | Registered: 17 October 2007
Hear ye, hear ye. RT that was simply brilliant. Your use of the straw man was simply brilliant. I have not said that "natural markets" were more desirable. I would say only a second best choice. So how on earth I get that notion? Don't know you tell me.
Well if we can get internet services and wireless telecommunication services, then I imagine it can also handle those necessities like it has before.
quote:
So why should we be content to take the naturally developed market as sacrosanct?
No such contention, but you may think about the internet and how many do not want more regulations on that, including many here...
Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005
Originally posted by Ronald Rutherford: But I am hard pressed to see anarchist trying to force too much cooperation. Thus I tend to be more worried by Socialism/Communism than what your so called Libertarians may think up.
You said it right when you said "so called Libertarians."
There is no such thing as a Liberatarian. The whole concept of Libertarian is a cooked up intellectualized idea to cover up good old fashion shameful selfish behavor.
Dean Baker wrote a good book (The Conservative Nanny State) on how free market/liberatarians want big govmt all over people, like a duck on a June bug. So called Liberatarians want a lot of forced cooperation from everyone else.
"There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that if you just legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, that their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous their prosperity will find its way up and through every class that rests upon it." William Jennings Bryan 1896
Posts: 165 | Location: Memphis | Registered: 08 August 2006
Originally posted by Randomthots: You contend that markets develop naturally without the aid of a state. I agree. I could cite any number of examples to support that fact.
Name one. Name one advanced market that doesn't require a state.
quote:
But then the Lib/Con philosophy goes even further. It asserts that this "natural" market, the Free Market, is the most desirable state of affairs.
The "free" market is not a natural market. Don't allow them to frame the argument this way. When you accept that frame work you are accepting their contention that when wealthy people cooperate with each other and form corporations, which are a child of the state and require state intervention to protect the investors (with for example limited liability without which they would just be partnerships of wealthy people and would enjoy no limited liability and would be at the mercy of the whims of the market), that that is a "natural" "free" market and not an intrusion on the market; BUT when working peole who control no wealth but wish to cooperate among THEMselves to protect THEIR interests from the whims of the market (perhaps adopt progressive taxes, require corporations to add pensions and health care to those corporate investments enjoying market protection, make monopolies illegal, or unionize) that is all not a "natural" market according to the cons and is an intrusion of the state on the "natural" order and must be stopped.
Read "The Conservative Nanny State: How the Wealthy Use the Government to Stay Rich and Get Richer," by Dean Baker. It's a short book, only about 100 pages long, and gives great detailed examples of so called anti govnmt free marketers using and wanting more big govnmt to protect them from the market.
"There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that if you just legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, that their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous their prosperity will find its way up and through every class that rests upon it." William Jennings Bryan 1896
Posts: 165 | Location: Memphis | Registered: 08 August 2006
Name one. Name one advanced market that doesn't require a state.
I didn't say advanced market. The markets I was thinking of are actually very primitive but it's interesting to see how the principles of economics plays out in them. I was rushed for time, but I should have given an example...
One example I got out of a book of economic readings for a college course was among POWs in WWII in Germany. The prisoners would get a daily ration box from the Red Cross. It would have a little bit of everything in it including a bar of chocolate and, I believe, 5 cigarettes. Now some prisoners smoked and some didn't and the ones that did smoke wanted more than 5 cigarettes a day. In the end the cigarettes, being somewhat more durable than the food items, became a kind of currency. The food items in the ration boxes also varied somewhat so it became kind of an advanced form of swapping lunches that school kids do.
As far as advanced markets go, I agree totally with you.
quote:
When you accept that frame work you are accepting their contention that when wealthy people cooperate with each other and form corporations, which are a child of the state and require state intervention to protect the investors (with for example limited liability without which they would just be partnerships of wealthy people and would enjoy no limited liability and would be at the mercy of the whims of the market), that that is a "natural" "free" market and not an intrusion on the market
To be fair, at least some hard core Libertarians, as opposed to Repugnicans seeking a philosophical framework to justify their greed, are opposed to the limited liability aspect of corporations as well.
quote:
BUT when working peole who control no wealth but wish to cooperate among THEMselves to protect THEIR interests from the whims of the market (perhaps adopt progressive taxes, require corporations to add pensions and health care to those corporate investments enjoying market protection, make monopolies illegal, or unionize) that is all not a "natural" market according to the cons and is an intrusion of the state on the "natural" order and must be stopped.
Amen, brother.
I've been in the process of moving this last week and I found a couple of books written by my wife's Great Grandfather, Stephen Haley Allen. You've probably never heard of him, but he was a justice on the Kansas Supreme Court. One of them is about Foreign Relations and the other is about Government in general. They appear to be college-level textbooks perhaps. Sort of the family legacy, I guess.
Anyway, the time frame for the books is interesting because they were published in 1920 and 1922. This was about when the modern form of corporation was invented. By all reports he was something of a conservative in his day, but his take on these new-fangled corporations was very skeptical. I'll post some excerpts when I get a chance (I don't have the right volume with me and I won't get home this weekend to get it). In particular he was very concerned about the disparity in the power structure vis-a-vis the investors versus the workers.
Multi-million dollar CEOs and higher share prices do not create prosperity. Rather, prosperity creates multi-million dollar CEOs and higher share prices --- and more a--holes!
Posts: 50 | Location: Kansas | Registered: 17 October 2007
There must have been some accomplished people among your ancestors. What happened to you? Just kidding of course.
Speaking of books from the 20s, after reading a Thomas Frank article, I browsed through some economic general reader books from the 30s that he mentioned. (It's amazing what you can find for pennies on internet used book sites.) Some of the same arguements made back than to convince working people to vote against their own best economic interest, along with arguments to convince them that huge wealth inequalities are a good thing for the economy, are being made all over again.
I'm sure you aware of this. But don't ever let cons con you into admitting in debate, either directly or indirectly, that the corporate world (or any example of the advanced, modern economy) is a natural development that exists without state intervention in a "free" market. They have been very successful in framing their arguements that way. And liberals have allowed it to happen wholesale in the national debate. Once you allow them to frame the arguement as a free market arguement (And who doesn't want to be free?) they can force you into theoretical postions which defending will make you look petty and silly (and make you look like you oppose freedom). BUT, if you can force them into abandoning that framework, than you can force them into admitting to a whole bunch of radical, liberatarian nonsense that is perfectly logical in their "free" market world, but that most people in real life will see as non-sensical and ridiculous. It will make THEM look
Read-Only Topic
