Left Libertarianism

RGacky3 said:

1. Who advocated a Maoist or Stalnist system.

2. Telling me to read someone.

3. Not all parks are Federal national parks.

4. Which is that they have subsidies, tax breaks, and sometimes the cost of oil goes up, so it's cheaper to buy a hybrid, in which case it has nothing to do With the externality.

And some People are good samaritains, but if you're solution to the problem of externalities is just every one will be altruistic I think you're fooling yourself.

That isn't a solution, thats hoping People will do the right thing, just to do it.

5. Ok then.
List of tariffs in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Tariffs in United States history - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

RGacky3 said:

1. Who advocated a Maoist or Stalnist system.

2. Telling me to read someone.

3. Not all parks are Federal national parks.

4. Which is that they have subsidies, tax breaks, and sometimes the cost of oil goes up, so it's cheaper to buy a hybrid, in which case it has nothing to do With the externality.

And some People are good samaritains, but if you're solution to the problem of externalities is just every one will be altruistic I think you're fooling yourself.

That isn't a solution, thats hoping People will do the right thing, just to do it.

5. Ok then.
List of tariffs in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Tariffs in United States history - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

Libertie76 said:

1. Am I wrong? No. Just by calling it a straw man is ludicrous especially since you said all systems consumers control production

2. I told you to read him because you don't think like an economist and can't come with logical connections as to why certain things happen. You seriously blame free markets with no intellectual reasons

3. Most parks are

4. There's a prius tax break? Big oil has more subsides then any other industry besides big pharmaceutical

It is when you rely on a system where everyone owns production through the market

5. Your link is a list of tarrifs?

What about quantitative easing, export subsides, embargoes, sanctions, and interest rate control.

Click to expand...

RGacky3 said:

1. No actually you are wrong, the state in Stalinist Russia and Mao's China produced based on consumption, it was a bad system, but they produced based on what "they thought" the nation needed.

2. Ok ....

3. So what?

4. Yes, you don't pay gas tax, and Big Oils subsidies don't end up in the consumers hands.

But I want to get this Clear,

You believe that externalities don't exist in a free market system, becuase People individually will sponateously price them in?

5. What about them?

Click to expand...

Libertie76 said:

1. The state, in those systems, forced production based on what society needed to consume. This exactly means that consumers did not dictate the means of production, but rather the state

3. You stated parks aren't federally regulated...

4. That's not a government sponsored tax break it's a market innovation lowering amount of taxes and maintenance costs you pay.

I bring up the subsidies because it limits the economic effect of market competition through protectionist policies in the market for oil. This is also, another reason why we haven't evolved to purely more efficient energy due to the government backing big oil. It's still to cheap so there isn't any room for an incentive to produce more efficient energy. So in a sense they do end up in our summers hands because the market isn't expanding and it's because of central control

I don't think they "don't exist" however, through time, the market can function the externality out through the process of educating the consumer on the effects of the externalities.

5. You said these tarriffs are the proof that the 1800s were more protected then today. Yet you insist on , either purposely or under educationally, ignoring the fact that we have huge protectionist policies today as well as a modern level of cyclical merchantilism evolving which is reducing the actual proper economic effect the free market has on globalization. So I listed a few that we are involved in

Click to expand...

RGacky3 said:

1. If that's the case then in Capitalism theCapitalist forces Production, the workers decide, and the Capitalist decide based on whatever will get them the most profit, which means follow the Money, not the actual needs, (in other Words poor People matter less, because they have less)

3. Completely ignoring my point as always.

4. So lets get this Clear ... YOU BELIEVE, that Oil without subsidies would fail in favor of renewable energy?

Also is that becuase People would price in externalities?

Lets say People know about externalities? So what? The problem isn't solved, unless everyone takes into account the externality, if one guy does and 20 don't the one guy looses out and the 20 gain, but ultimately the externality still causes problems ... so it requires collective action.

Also who does the education and why?

Also you're completely ignoring the game-theory problem inherent in externalities.

5. QE is not protectionism, what export subsidies?, embargoes and sanctions are mainly political, interest rate Control is not protectionism.

Click to expand...

Libertie76 said:

I. Are you mentally ill? The consumers decide what is produced through the market In capitalism. End of discussion

3. You said we can create a system of housing not regulated by the state like in parks and i said most parks are federally regulated....

4. Yes.

I've explained two wAys that can fix externalities without collectivism

If society decides not to pay higher costs on something that is creating an externality then that's how a market works through a "democratic market"...

Capitalists with an evil agenda to empower the individual not the state

5. Q.E. is a market manipulation to influence inflow of investments as well as devalues the price of goods to convince foreign consumers to buy domestic goods...

We heavily subsidize our exporting sector.

Still are protectionist policy

Interest rate control effects massive amounts of investment worldwide as well as influences exchange rates which can be used as a way to boost exports or limit imports.

You forgot import quotas

Click to expand...

RGacky3 said:

1.No not end of discussion, because not all consumers have the same market Power.

3. ANd that's besides the point, most city parks are not run by the federal government, meaning you can have the commons that are not reguated by the state.

4. Again, it's not "society" that decides, it's individual consumers, the society doesn't decide, but it must live with the consequences of those that do decide, that's the point of an externality .... something which you still, do not understand.

Capitalist's agenda is to maximize profit, nothing more nothing less.

5. give me specifics .... Q.E. is Money influx, every Financial system has Money influx or lack.

Interest rates exist in every economic system.

Click to expand...

Libertie76 said:

1. Yet producers still tend to target consumers with affordable rates for the majority of society. This is because more consumers buying your product the more returns on investments you'll receive. You always blame the suppliers of the system yet you don't understand that demand decides what is produced, not the producers. Your faux paradox of monopolized suppliers dictating the lives of individuals is not only based on uneducated misconceptions but a lack of understanding market functions.

2. What is the difference between a local government dictating prices and a state government dictating prices.

3. Society decides by voting through the market. If enough people understand that buying a certain product is harmful for society more often then not they'll vote that product out of production. However, with governmental price floors and ceilings it begins to become difficult for the lower class to actually afford a more substantial product. If we subsidize plants producing steel and that plant, through subsidies, can sell it's product twice as cheap while polluting; lower firms will not be able to actually buy a superior product because of cost. You truly doubt the inherent compassion humanity has for each other so, as a socialist with a pretentious disposition of humanity, think that since humanity can't decide what is better through a system based on individualism you need to force collectivism. And let me guess you'll lead the way with you lack of understanding of market systems.

Capitalists agenda is to maximize profits by producing what they think society wants or needs. Socialists agenda is to force everyone to beat and act the exact same way

5. Specifics of what export subsidies? Look at the lists of United States highest export sectors then look how they correlate to governmental subsidies. It's funny, the United States pretends like we don't use protectionist policies to influence world trade because through the WTO we accuse other countries of doing the same things and give them sanctions and etc due to their policies of protection. Yet, we manipulate the market to huge levels.

Q.e. Is central banks buying up assets to completely devalue the currency and bring huge incentives to other countries to buy products because it becomes so cheap. It's a designed monetary policy to litterally boom the export sector while the import and domestic sector lose all real purchasing power. I have no idea what you mean by money influx. Please explain.

Interest rates might exist in every monetary system, however they are not centrally controlled. Meaning, in a true free market consumers will dictate interest rates and banks will find an equilibrium interest rate based on level of societal output, yet centrally controlled interest rate now dictates what consumers will have as an interest rate on investment or production. This is presently used to enhance spending or decrease spending, in other words enhancing spending to huge levels with low interest rates will boost exports and limit imports of capital simply based on a centrally controlled price level. This is used as a centrally controlled protectionist policy.

Click to expand...

RGacky3 said:

1. I'm not blaiming the Suppliers ... I'm blaiming the system itself. The system only has one value, profit, and market value, meaning the more Money you have, the more say you have, the more market Power you have to get favorable deals ...

2. Local government is a Whole lot more publically accountable, (as opposed to how you want it, Money and profit accountable)

3. Capitalist's agendy is to maximize profit ... NOT by what they think society wants or needs, but by what will get them the most Money, get the most Money while delivering the least .... I'm sorry, the Market =/= society, the market is one dollar one vote ... society is one person one voice.

4. This is you're problem With externalities ... you can't deal With them, you haven't once in any of Our discussions dealt With them, you at some times pretend they don't exist, and at other times thing everyone will spontaenously act in everyone elses self interest, at the same time ..... It's Complete bull****.

Click to expand...

Libertie76 said:

1. You profit by selling things based on societal demand. No matter how high levels of income inequality society is faced wIth

2. Yet it's still a "state" controlling property value right?

3. Free markets maximize profit by selling the most possible. This literally means selling as much as possible to society. There is no way to go around that.

4. I never said they don't exist. The problem is that you don't understand sound economic arguments and you blatantly ignore what I say and maybe read one sentence then jump to a conclusion then swItch my wOrds. So instead of actually having an econOmic debate you basically go "you're wrong because you don't understand externalities" without explaining any economic view associated with them. You even go so far away to blatantly ignore positive externalities. Then I ask you if you've taken any economics courses and you don't answer. It's seriously you read a pamphlet thought you had the concept of externalities masterd but you were as far away from that as socialist are away from any economic philosophy

Click to expand...

RGacky3 said:

1. so basically you want to ignore market Power inequality and pretend "society" = whatever the ones With the most Money want.

2. Sure, and so is a private Company a "state" controlling property, just Depends how you define a state.

3. No they don't, there is such a thing as marginal cost, you can read it in a high School economics book.

4. I don't ignore positive externalities ... but positive externalities are NOT maximized, because benefits are something a Company WANTS to internalize, cost is something they WANT to externalize.

Yes I've taken economics courses.

You have completely ignore externalities ... you started talking about GMO Foods as if it has any relevance ... you say "competition" without actually explaining how it would do anything to limit externalized COSTs.

Then you og to the everyone will just be a good semaritin for no reason other than People are Saints argument .... which is rediculous. completely nonsensicle.

Click to expand...

Libertie76 said:

1. Yea because I said ignore income inequality... I said even with income inequality by selling to low income consumers you will still profit more then targeting only the high 1%

2.a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government.
"Germany, Italy, and other European states" so when you said that there are ways around government controlling property what you really meant was using government right?

3. Wow..... Even a high school student wouldn't be this naive. I said selling as much as possible, key words as much as possible. Marginal cost is giving up what you could of used for something else.... There is no way a factor of production could of produced both simultaneously, hence "as much as possible"

4. If you retread both thread boards I have said much much more then your cherry picked summary of concepts that I didn't even bring forward. I did not ignore any externality question, the problem is when I answer with a sound economic response you ignore my response then pretend like I'm not answering because you don't want to be wrong. Very egotistical for someone that is a self proclaimed socialist, very competitive as well. Why don't you allow the homeless in your community by externalizing the benefits of your private computer. Do you have every person over that can't afford food for dinner every night? Do you do daily food drives, I highly doubt it.mits easy for you to point the finger at a system that optimizes imdividualism because you have a false sense of elitism, however you wish to force others to give up their hard earned status to turn it over to a state. Yet it's not a state right? There no such thing as gov. In socialism correct? Since it's not a 'centrally planned economy"

Click to expand...

Why don't you allow the homeless in your community by externalizing the benefits of your private computer.

Click to expand...

RGacky3 said:

1. You ignore the imballance of market Power ... Income inequality leads to inballances of market bargaining Power ... do you deny this?

2. So a private estate is a government ... since the landlord acts as a government in that estate.

3. You don't produce "as much as possible" you produce as much as is profitable ... if the market can only handle 10 TVs, and you produce 20, you've just wasted 10 TVs ... or lowerd the cost and thus hurt Your profit.

4.You didn't answer it With ANY economic repsonse ....



What does that even mean? letting them use it? The fact that you wrote that sentance, and posted it, shows you DON*T KNOW STILL ... What an externality is.

For ****s sake, how can you still not understand what an externality is.

BTW, if you have THE market solution, do this, explain the problem, then explain the MARKET solution and how the market solution actually solves the problem of externalities .... if you do that then we're good.

Click to expand...

Libertie76 said:

1. Nice straw man, I said even wIth income inequality pRoDucers will sTill target the lower members of society with goods. I did not say let's ignore income inequality. The point is free markets don't only aLlocate resources to the rich like you claim

2. Do private estates have the ability to put people in jail on their own accord? How about raise taxes to unwilling renters. No... this is a stupid ascertain of a high school student who thinks and acts like an elitist

3. If you over produce your proDucing beyond the possibilities of the market, so yea your proDucing more then is possible...

4. You the one that conStantly says firms want to externalize cost, why don't you externalize benefit by doing things like I suggested. It seems rather easy for you to tell other people what to do with their products but for you you don't need to. Do You allow homeless people shelter or food or access to all of your own commodities?

I already told you, externalities lead to market failure due to the miscalculation of supply or demand. Solutions can be mediation, severe cases a courtroom based on pre existing homestead laws, or even through competition by another firm allocating the resources to the actual societal equilibrium demand not the firms equilibrium...

Click to expand...

RGacky3 said:

1. Targeting lower members of society With goods does not mean that lower members of society are getting decent deals, are getting what they want (given that for example, they would often want more Public transportation, low Income housing and so on), my point is not that no capitalist ever sells to the poor, I'm saying the poor have much less market Power, and thus have much less say over the market and over what is produced, How it's produced, and will usually get much worse deals.

2. Yes they can put People in jail if they are on their estate and won't leave, and yes they can charge anyone who is on their "Territory."

3. No you arn't of coarse it's "possible" to produce more than is profitable ... it's just not profitable ...

4. Why don't I externalize benefits like you suggested? Becuase it doesn't make sense too ...

They lead to market failure, and they don't miscalculate supply and demand at all, since the externalities are not part of the demand or supply.

You mentioned 2 "solutions."

1. Courtcases based on Homestead laws.

You haven't explained how that would work? Nor how it would work for all cases of externalities, you only suggested it for the externality of pollution, but you didn't explain how it would actually work, who would sue? Who could sue? And who would they sue? Given that the pollution is culmulative and based on everyone doing action that collectively creates the problem? Also how would Homestead laws apply to the air? Or the market?

2. Competition.

Given that externalities necessarily affect those who are not consumers or sellers of the transaction creating the externality ... competition wouldn't come into it. You used the example of Organic Food, yet that isn't an example of competition taking care of an externality at all ....

Click to expand...

Libertie76 said:

1. Just because there will always be an econOmic law that dictates people will always want more then what they have currently, does not mean that the system of free markets are inherently evil. The fact remains, from your own quote, low income members of society have a say in production, unlike a centrally owned economy where no one has any. Why reDuce the "small" amount of say abd replace it with no say

2. If the people are not obeying laws executed by the state. Westernized countries view people to have property rights, so yes trespassing would be illegal. Illegal by city ordinance not house ordinance

3. You're arguing semantics for no substantial reason. The only way you profit is if you don't produce more then the market wants, if you produce outside market demand possibilities...

4. It doesn't make sense to because you don't need to share but everyone else does. You mean to tell me you are unwilling to share something that "didn't belong to you" but force me to share my wages with someone else. Why do you get special treatment?

1. It would be a civil suit like I said

2. In cases market competition can solve the problem of externalities. I'm not explaining this again.... I've done it at least twenty times

Click to expand...

RGacky3 said:

1. That isn't what I said ... what I said is that poor People have much much less say over what happens in an economy, due to the fact that they have less economic votes (dollars), they also have much less market Power to get deals favorable to them ....

2. Yup, exactly, so private property can be just the same as a government, what's the distinction?

3. The only way you profit is if you sell higher and spend less .... I'm not arguing semantisc here ... I'm arguing economics, sometimes producing more means less Money.

4. I don't get special treatment, I'm talking institutions here and systems, not individual charity.

1. Civil suit based on what? Homestead? How does that deal With externalities? how am I going to sue a chinese metal plant, or InFact all the metal plants in the world, for their part in creating global warming?

2. No it doesn't, and no you haven't explained it ... all you said is "I would pay more to buy steel that doesn't pollute."

I pointed out many problems With it, none of which you have addressed-

a. Why would you pay more when it has no individual benefit to you?
b. if you decide to pay more, and Your competitor doesn't, then you'll be under cut in the market and Your "good semaritain" decision will be pointless
c. you paying more won't change the externality problem unless everyone else does, and why would they?
d. how do you know what steel pollutes and what doesn't?
e. what if you can't afford to buy steel that doesn't pollute? Wouldn't that just mean it's up to only the wealthy to choose what externalities they will take care of through phanthropic acts of buying?

Click to expand...

Libertie76 said:

1. Good job on ignoring my question

2. Nice twist of words, not what I said only the state and police can arrest someone

3. You can profit by manufacturing a quality product too. Also by investing more... You're not arguing economics you have not said one example of economic substance since your tirade of how Libertarians don't know what an externality is "it's market failure" your response... " no it's not"

4. So ok you'll raise my taxes but refuse to share your products. You are a walking hypocrite. Let's see, you refuse to be wrong, and refuse to share products you don't "own" competition, individual possession... sounds like a capitalist. So from this exhausting debate, if you could even call it that, you are a hypocrite, a faux elitist, and a high school kid who has no clue what any macro functions of free market economics are... yet you act like you know everything when you have no idea what you're talking about

1. You say Chinese like they follow jurisdiction. If your neighborhood metal plant is polluting and someone gets sick you sue them. If you ask how the exact same way you sue someone today. Last time that is explained.

2. Because you live in the world and want a soUrce of clean more efficient whatever the product is. Not if everyone else starts buying it it, hell due to business practices you might Not even pay more. Because people want more effective products. Through factory proDucing practices, individual firms stamping products with "ozone emission free" not too complex. It's pollution were not talking million $ price difference. We're talking a couple dollar pRice difference.

That is the last time I'm explaining it to you.

Click to expand...

RGacky3 said:

1. What was the question? BTW, will you stop With this "centrally planned" bull****? Capitalism is centrally planned (in Corporations) and socialism is centrally planned (depending on how it's set up) .... it's a strawman.

2. It is'nt what I said, but the out come is the same, property owners can make the laws for what their property is, no matter how large it is, and have them enforced.

3. So what? "quality" doesn't determine profit, what determines profit is Revenue minus cost. .... Really my only point has been trying to get you to actually deal With the problems of externalities ... which you haven't.

4. Who said anything about taxes?

Also are you really suggesting that individual actions can solve systemic problems?

Ok lets go to Your stumbling over the problem of externalities.

1. You sue who? the one metal plant? usually it's multiple metal plants, along With other industry .... how do you know which one put enough pollution in the air to get People more sick? That isn't how externalities work, it isn't one factory that pollutes and makes one person sick. I said China, becuase global warming, and pollution, is not just a neighborhood issue.

2. Effective Products =/= Cleaner Products, InFact often it's the opposite, effective Products are the ones that externalize costs (such as staying enviromentally friendly).

Who enforces the "ozone emmissions free" stamp?

Also lets say you buy the "ozone emmissions free" Product, and you pay more ... why would you buy it knowing that most likely other People are not buying it, which would mean that nothing is actually changing or improving enviromentally, all that's changing is you're left wit hless Money ... what if you can't afford "ozome emmissions free" Products? And no we arn't talking a couple dollars price difference, Corporations Count cents on each Product spent.

You're ignoring the problem ... still ... or maybe the fact is what it always has been.

Libertarianism cannot deal With the externality problem, because there IS NO Capitalist solution for it.

Click to expand...

Libertie76 said:

1. Really, capitalism is centrally planned. You do realize central planned economic systems mean that the government controls economic activity not businesses or consumers right? Good job on ignoring my question again.

2. Isn't it nice to work for something then have individual say over what happens to and with said item? Yet the enforcement of private property comes again from the state, so you can say all you want and set own "laws" but they have to be in line with state legislation. I can not over turn slavery with my house.

3. Why is Germany being accused of cyclical merchantilism? Because their high quality produCts destroy competition of surrounding e.u. countries. So yes explain your stance on quality to the Italian auto manufactures... I haven't "dealt" with them by answEring the way you want me to. So you ignore my responses twist words and ignore questions.

The only question I'll answer is about the ozone admission stamp, and that is the consumers enforce it through the market. If they don't care then that is the vote of the people. Everything else I have answered.

Now, how would socialist USA end pollution In China

Click to expand...

RGacky3 said:

1. Yes it is centrally planned ... in Board rooms ... are they responding to consumers? Sure, So are governments ....

2. Yes, but again, in principle, it's the same thing ... monarchies are basically large instances of private property but without democratic oversight.

3. Because Economics is not black and white .... :roll: common man, you know this, higher quality is ONLY Worth it when it yields higher profit, and that is not always the case.

4. How can consumers enforce it through the market ....? Explain how it would be practically possible.

Where have you answered everything else? What post number and how did it actually answer anything?

Click to expand...

Libertie76 said:

1. What happens when a business makes too much of a product? They lower the prices and retract production. How do they know they made too much? Based on the amount of sales to the individual consumer. What happens when a government makes too much? Ideally they lower production. Now please explain how they know they made too much, without markets or money, and please explain how they lower production and reallocate labor to the right sector where it is needed without state force. Once you find your answer you'll see how the market system is individually controlled and how socialism is centrally controlled. Btw you're still ignoring my other question

2.your mis-defining monarchies with feudalism. Now, what gave the power of violence to the manor lords in feudalism? Access to capital? No that would empower the entrepreneur class rather then the feudal lords. No no no, what empowered the manor lords was the kingdom or the state or the government. Not the private ownership of goods.

3. It yields a higher profit when it is higher quality. Because, you spend more time energy and expertise with relative scarcity into an object for better quality. If it was ****ty people will pay less. Profit comes from quality.

4. Retread our hundreds of posts maybe after the 40th time I responded along with the "positive externality" of my actual economics based arguments spillover benefits your mind into actually understanding the role of markets... Maybe just maybes however if I go back to look through these you'll just twist my words and ignore my questions.

P.s. If you don't answer my questions at the top of this reply I am no longer replying to your quotes.

Click to expand...

RGacky3 said:

1. THey know they've made to much when the Stock room is filling up With unused goods. Or when People are not using the Product that they are producing, but rather using another ... it isn't that difficult. They do it already With all sorts of Things.

2. There was no state .... the Kingdom was huge the private property of the King ...

3. No ... it doesn' always yield a higher profit when it's higher quality, because sometimes the COSTs are higher than the Return would be, when you try and raise the quality ... this isn't diffucult dude. It's why cocacola has higher profits than some fine wine Companies.

4. "positive externalities" don't explain anything. But point me to the actual post where you answer the question .... explain how consumers could realistically enforce it through the market, this is really getting rediculous. How could they enforce the "Ozone stamp" through the market.

This is really getting sad, it's Clear you have no answer to the externality question that actually deals With the problem or makes sense.

Click to expand...