Right Wing Ideology Fails in Economics As Well

JimboJ · Sep 18, 2009

Alex Libman said:
Technology solves many of those problems, with ever-cheaper devices for analyzing nutritional / chemical contents, and ever-greater use of the Internet, including from portable devices. You don't need to "investigate" anything, just hold a product next to your smartphone and look at the summary screen: this many stars for quality, safety, expert advice, consumer satisfaction, ethical "karma" of companies involved, any warning flags, etc - it only takes 5 seconds!

And many other "negative externalities" like pollution are issues that are dealt with through property rights, like between the owner of a factory and any adjacent property owners that can detect their air / water / soil quality being affected, in which case the factory owes them restitution (unless they have a prior agreement, like a factory might agree to a specific cap and sponsor a local park to compensate for it).

What do you mean by "even"? CPSC is a government monopoly, and is thus naturally inferior to a competing mesh of consumer safety organizations that actually have to compete for public donations, subscriptions, or service fees (most likely paid by manufacturers looking for a reputable way to prove their product's quality) on the basis of their reputation.

When the CPSC monopoly screws up (i.e. corruption, incompetence, forcefully delaying / keeping a useful product out of the marketplace, raising product prices too much, etc) - what're you gonna do, move to a different country? Even if you do, they'll still be getting your tax dollars for many years to come!

On the issue of medical regulation, I specifically recommend a book by Mary Ruwart called Healing Our World (older edition free online). FDA kills!

So you want to live in a society, where ever consumer has to first research every product they buy. They cannot simply go to the grocery store and try a new brand of milk and is on sale because they cannot trust that brand of milk.

You mean every citizen should have to measure their own air quality, soil quality, etc.... This seems like a terribly inefficient means of environmental regulation as well as unequal. Already individuals spend years in court trying to prove causal relations between pollution and health. Moreover, what about the citizens who don't have the resources to carry out such extensive scientific measures. Manufacturers do pay for organizations to evaluate the effects of their products consumer safety and market externalities. These organizations have a notorious reputation for being terribly biased and set-up with the sole purpose of hoodwinking the public.

Finally, why disband the CSPC? Even with its regulation we have the most diverse and largest market of products in the world and in history. Disbanding it would have no tangible affect on price. Yet the CSPC allows this market while keeping products relatively safe and enabling trade on an unprecedented level. Sure it tries to take away your freedom of buying extremely flammable PJs but then again I don't know anyone who would want to enjoy this freedom.

Alex Libman · Sep 18, 2009

JimboJ said:
So you want to live in a society, where ever consumer has to first research every product they buy. They cannot simply go to the grocery store and try a new brand of milk and is on sale because they cannot trust that brand of milk.

You can't do that now - you're placing your life in your blind faith in the government regulation monopoly. I have given numerous reasons why a decentralized system of quality certification would be less prone to corruption, incompetence, and inflexibility. When quality certification becomes competitive, farmers will be incentivized to provide even greater level of transparency than exists today, or else reputable stores will buy their milk from another farmer. You might even learn the name of the cow(s) your milk came from and get to see their cow-cam online. :lol:

Like I just said above, "you don't need to 'investigate' anything, just hold a product next to your smartphone and look at the summary screen: this many stars for quality, safety, expert advice, consumer satisfaction, ethical 'karma' of companies involved, any warning flags, etc - it only takes 5 seconds!" In fact, passive technology (ex. your debit / credit card, etc) can be programmed to alert you when you're about to buy something untrustworthy or ethically undesirable (ex. a product from a company that hires known animal abusers), and those safeguards can even be turned on by default.

JimboJ said:
You mean every citizen should have to measure their own air quality, soil quality, etc.... This seems like a terribly inefficient means of environmental regulation as well as unequal.

Well, most people will choose to live in neighborhoods that will represent their interests, and there will be environmental consultants that can be hired to come on your property, measure everything, and give you a detailed report - many law firms might even do this for free to promote their services in suing any neighboring polluters you may have.

JimboJ said:
Already individuals spend years in court trying to prove causal relations between pollution and health. [...]

That is a failure of current tort laws that depend on government regulations. In a free society there would be stronger standards of property rights: you don't have to prove that a particle of pollution came from that factory and into your lungs and caused your illness, just that that factory produces pollution that affects your property. And, once again, ever-advancing technologies (ex. flying / floating / drilling probes with sensors) are getting ever more effective at mapping pollution as it travels through air / water / ground.

JimboJ said:
Finally, why disband the CSPC? Even with its regulation we have the most diverse and largest market of products in the world and in history. Disbanding it would have no tangible affect on price. Yet the CSPC allows this market while keeping products relatively safe and enabling trade on an unprecedented level. Sure it tries to take away your freedom of buying extremely flammable PJs but then again I don't know anyone who would want to enjoy this freedom.

A gradualist / minarchist step is to make CSPC evaluations optional, but require products that opt out to carry a "not evaluated by CSPC" warning label. The next step is to allow certain private quality assurance agencies (ex underwriter laboratories) to be used instead of the CSPC. Etc.

Kushinator · Sep 18, 2009

Alex Libman said:
You can't do that now - you're placing your life in your blind faith in the government regulation monopoly. I have given numerous reasons why a decentralized system of quality certification would be less prone to corruption, incompetence, and inflexibility. When quality certification becomes competitive, farmers will be incentivized to provide even greater level of transparency than exists today, or else reputable stores will buy their milk from another farmer. You might even learn the name of the cow(s) your milk came from and get to see their cow-cam online. :lol:

Like I just said above, "you don't need to 'investigate' anything, just hold a product next to your smartphone and look at the summary screen: this many stars for quality, safety, expert advice, consumer satisfaction, ethical 'karma' of companies involved, any warning flags, etc - it only takes 5 seconds!" In fact, passive technology (ex. your debit / credit card, etc) can be programmed to alert you when you're about to buy something untrustworthy or ethically undesirable (ex. a product from a company that hires known animal abusers), and those safeguards can even be turned on by default.

Well, most people will choose to live in neighborhoods that will represent their interests, and there will be environmental consultants that can be hired to come on your property, measure everything, and give you a detailed report - many law firms might even do this for free to promote their services in suing any neighboring polluters you may have.

That is a failure of current tort laws that depend on government regulations. In a free society there would be stronger standards of property rights: you don't have to prove that a particle of pollution came from that factory and into your lungs and caused your illness, just that that factory produces pollution that affects your property. And, once again, ever-advancing technologies (ex. flying / floating / drilling probes with sensors) are getting ever more effective at mapping pollution as it travels through air / water / ground.

A gradualist / minarchist step is to make CSPC evaluations optional, but require products that opt out to carry a "not evaluated by CSPC" warning label. The next step is to allow certain private quality assurance agencies (ex underwriter laboratories) to be used instead of the CSPC. Etc.

Your over reliance on the gains in technology, as a means of implementing a gradual shift to a completely decentralized system, more on par with Anarchy, is a bit naive. Without a doubt, technology has changed peoples lives, and allowed efficiency to be realized in ways which we as a society have never dreamed. Nobody is doubting this.

But what you have failed to realize, time and again, is that government is in part responsible for the initial implementation of capital; in the form of resources, human capital, compatible policy, and of course the "investment". Your romantic idea about a government less society due to technological innovation is on par with utopian socialism in almost every way.

The department of defense is the leading producer of technology in the world, and has been for ages. The internet, cellular phones, nuclear technology, transportation, etc..., and their advancement within the last 70 years could not have been possible without the military industrial complex.

Until you can rationally (not romantically) untie the bind between the two (MID and Tech), you will continue to grasp at straws....

Agent_Grey · Sep 18, 2009

DrunkenAsparagus said:
No, but it counts more if it's more responsive. Choice in politics is negligible compared t ochoice in the free market

Let me break down my problem with this perspective. In the free market, the more money you have, the more power you have. All votes (issues with campagin contributions not withstanding) are equal. My vote is exactly the same as someone who out-earns me. That gives me comfort.

Now, I think conservatives have this belief which thinks the equation of the world works like this: Hard Work+Time+Creativity=Money.

If things really worked like that, I'd probably be behind almost every message. But I acknowledge the huge weight that luck places upon every success story. We do not have perfect control of our fortunes, or even our lives. If people had the kind of control that the right thinks they do NO ONE would ever stub a toe or get in a car wreck. If you're lucky enough to be born Paris Hilton, you're rich. That's it. End of story. If you're unlucky enough to be born with an extreme deformity in a poor familly, you're as good as lost.

While I respect the fact that life is not fair, I find too often conservative policies seem to rely on the idea that it is, even as they scream at anyone who tries to balance the equation where it isn't. There is a disconnect there.

Firstly, big business doesn't control the economy. Much of it is run by small and medium sized businesses. This doesn't remove the fact that big business can lose market share if it screws up. Also, just as there are bad consumers, there are at least as many bad voters. If consumers aren't able to regulate business with their dollars, voters are incapable of regulating politicians with their votes.

Absolutely, but when a small business fails, its owner, the one who made the decisions, is in trouble. When a big business fails, its owners may get screwed while the people who made the decisions get cushy retirements. They just aren't incentivised to avoid bad behavior in nearly the same way.

To your latter point: The difference is that bad voters only cancel out good ones at best. A bad consumer with more money than me (a good consumer, I hope) has far more say in how things are run in the free market. What is worse, wealth can be a de-empathizing mechanism. If you don't face the same threats and fears that an impovershed or middle-classed citizen does, you are unlikely to make your choics based on his fears.

They are places where unemployment and underemployment are usually far higher than ours.

Absolutely. So? Why is employment the be-all end-all of success in a society? A midieval serfdom had 100% employment, but one could hardly call this the ideal culture.

They have nanny states that regulate people's lives far more than here.

Amsterdam has some freedoms we do not, and some we have they do not. The same is true of many socialist countries. As long as they are democratic societies, I don't feel their rights are particularly inferior. Do you?

They often have more natural resources for fewer people than we do, like Norway's oil. They are also places where more than half of what people earn is stolen from them and given to those who don't

While I wouldn't want to see a tax-rate as high as theirs, I don't see that as some catch-all proof that they are a failed state. They just have different priorities than we do, like not seeing their citizens starve in the streets and having good transit. We're enthused to have GDP and Economic growth that allows for the rich to become mega-rich, and the mega rich to become psychotic rich.

Kushinator · Sep 18, 2009

Agent_Grey said:
Let me break down my problem with this perspective. In the free market, the more money you have, the more power you have. All votes (issues with campagin contributions not withstanding) are equal. My vote is exactly the same as someone who out-earns me. That gives me comfort.

Now, I think conservatives have this belief which thinks the equation of the world works like this: Hard Work+Time+Creativity=Money.

If things really worked like that, I'd probably be behind almost every message. But I acknowledge the huge weight that luck places upon every success story. We do not have perfect control of our fortunes, or even our lives. If people had the kind of control that the right thinks they do NO ONE would ever stub a toe or get in a car wreck. If you're lucky enough to be born Paris Hilton, you're rich. That's it. End of story. If you're unlucky enough to be born with an extreme deformity in a poor familly, you're as good as lost.

Tell that to Snoop Dogg, or even....... Kirk Kerkorian:2razz:

Absolutely, but when a small business fails, its owner, the one who made the decisions, is in trouble. When a big business fails, its owners may get screwed while the people who made the decisions get cushy retirements. They just aren't incentivised to avoid bad behavior in nearly the same way.

Limited liability companies are easily formed, and protect your private assets from the result an indebted failed business plan.

Absolutely. So? Why is employment the be-all end-all of success in a society? A midieval serfdom had 100% employment, but one could hardly call this the ideal culture.

100% employment? :mrgreen: Regardless, employment is a viable measure of the strength of our economy.

While I wouldn't want to see a tax-rate as high as theirs, I don't see that as some catch-all proof that they are a failed state. They just have different priorities than we do, like not seeing their citizens starve in the streets and having good transit. We're enthused to have GDP and Economic growth that allows for the rich to become mega-rich, and the mega rich to become psychotic rich.

What is wrong with being psychotic rich? Secondly, care to describe the homeless situation of western Europe with a bit more clarity?

Agent_Grey · Sep 18, 2009

Goldenboy219 said:
Tell that to Snoop Dogg, or even....... Kirk Kerkorian:2razz:

Wait, are you saying they worked hard or not?

Limited liability companies are easily formed, and protect your private assets from the result an indebted failed business plan.

Umm... right, I have a problem with the people who DON'T get hurt by their bad practices, not the people who do. Telling me the not even small business owners have to suffer the consequences of their action does not make me inclined to agree...

100% employment? :mrgreen: Regardless, employment is a viable measure of the strength of our economy.

I agree its a good indicator, but I'm not a big believer in economy being the sole measure of state-well-being. A strong, stable economy is good, but if we get there at the expense of happiness or the well being of a majority of our citizens, we're still losing.

What is wrong with being psychotic rich? Secondly, care to describe the homeless situation of western Europe with a bit more clarity?

Because after a certain point, wealth has to come at the expense of people around you. Contrary to the suggestion that rising tides lift all boats, resources are limited. Greed is simply not good.

DrunkenAsparagus · Sep 19, 2009

Agent_Grey said:
Let me break down my problem with this perspective. In the free market, the more money you have, the more power you have. All votes (issues with campagin contributions not withstanding) are equal. My vote is exactly the same as someone who out-earns me. That gives me comfort.

Now, I think conservatives have this belief which thinks the equation of the world works like this: Hard Work+Time+Creativity=Money.

If things really worked like that, I'd probably be behind almost every message. But I acknowledge the huge weight that luck places upon every success story. We do not have perfect control of our fortunes, or even our lives. If people had the kind of control that the right thinks they do NO ONE would ever stub a toe or get in a car wreck. If you're lucky enough to be born Paris Hilton, you're rich. That's it. End of story. If you're unlucky enough to be born with an extreme deformity in a poor familly, you're as good as lost.

Of course it's easier to make money when you have money. Luck is a factor, but that alone won't get one very far. 70% of millionares are self made. Many rise out of poverty. Socialism doesn't bring the poor up. It brings everyone else done to their level. IF you really want to do away with our ghettos, don't throw government money at the problem. Welfare, government run schools, and the War on Drugs have kept the poor down in the inner cities

Agent_Grey said:
While I respect the fact that life is not fair, I find too often conservative policies seem to rely on the idea that it is, even as they scream at anyone who tries to balance the equation where it isn't. There is a disconnect there.

Life isn't completely fair. Neither is government theft.

Agent_Grey said:
Absolutely, but when a small business fails, its owner, the one who made the decisions, is in trouble. When a big business fails, its owners may get screwed while the people who made the decisions get cushy retirements. They just aren't incentivised to avoid bad behavior in nearly the same way.

They'll make more money if they succeed. It's in their selfinterest to make the best decisions that they can

Agent_Grey said:
To your latter point: The difference is that bad voters only cancel out good ones at best. A bad consumer with more money than me (a good consumer, I hope) has far more say in how things are run in the free market. What is worse, wealth can be a de-empathizing mechanism. If you don't face the same threats and fears that an impovershed or middle-classed citizen does, you are unlikely to make your choics based on his fears.

You presume that the business with the most market share is the only one that shapes the market or is in control. This isn't true. For instance in my town some people choose to spend some of their disposable income at a comic book store that I hang out at. The owner can't have much more than 100 customers. While the nearby Starbucks see many, many more. While the comic book store is incentivized to grow more, the larger business down the street hasn't put him out of business just because it's bigger.

Agent_Grey said:
Absolutely. So? Why is employment the be-all end-all of success in a society? A midieval serfdom had 100% employment, but one could hardly call this the ideal culture.

It cuts growth and feeds the less productive part of the economy. It disincentivizes growth.

Agent_Grey said:
Amsterdam has some freedoms we do not, and some we have they do not. The same is true of many socialist countries. As long as they are democratic societies, I don't feel their rights are particularly inferior. Do you?

Yes I do. They not dictatorships, but freedom isn't just about free speech and elections. Their entrepenuers and others are hamstrung and controlled by those who don't earn. The haves are controled more by the have nots than here. Economic freedom is in my opinion a critical part of any free society.

Agent_Grey said:
While I wouldn't want to see a tax-rate as high as theirs, I don't see that as some catch-all proof that they are a failed state. They just have different priorities than we do, like not seeing their citizens starve in the streets and having good transit. We're enthused to have GDP and Economic growth that allows for the rich to become mega-rich, and the mega rich to become psychotic rich.

Never said that they're a failed state. The USSR lasted a good long while. Also, so what if some are "psychotic rich," this doesn't make others poorer.

phattonez · Sep 19, 2009

Goldenboy219 said:
The department of defense is the leading producer of technology in the world, and has been for ages. The internet, cellular phones, nuclear technology, transportation, etc..., and their advancement within the last 70 years could not have been possible without the military industrial complex.

Until you can rationally (not romantically) untie the bind between the two (MID and Tech), you will continue to grasp at straws....

I hope that I don't get drawn into this debate, but what about the advancement in computers? That's pretty important don't you think?

Alex Libman · Sep 20, 2009

Goldenboy219 said:
[...] But what you have failed to realize, time and again, is that government is in part responsible for the initial implementation of capital [...]

What you fail to understand is that government force doesn't somehow magically add technological competence. It steals ("taxes") capital from the private sector, which is highly productive and results-oriented, keeps a large fraction of that capital as overhead, and redistributes the remaining capital back to the government's cronies in the private sector, which now face much less competition and are far less accountable for results. This is a net loss! The idea that the government can contribute something to the economy is as ridiculous as the idea of a man lifting himself off the ground by pulling on his bootstraps!

Furthermore, government regulations further slow down the rate of technological progress. For example, the underlying technology behind cell phones was around in the 1950s, but it was delayed by several decades because the FCC bureaucracy couldn't move its fat lazy butt out of the way to allow it to be developed! And nowhere is government interventionism more painful than in the energy production industry, which slows everything else as well. If the government had stayed the same size it was in 1900, we would have reached the level of technological development we have today by 1970!

creation · Sep 20, 2009

Alex Libman said:
What you fail to understand is that government force doesn't somehow magically add technological competence. It steals ("taxes") capital from the private sector, which is highly productive and results-oriented, keeps a large fraction of that capital as overhead, and redistributes the remaining capital back to the government's cronies in the private sector, which now face much less competition and are far less accountable for results. This is a net loss! The idea that the government can contribute something to the economy is as ridiculous as the idea of a man lifting himself off the ground by pulling on his bootstraps!

Furthermore, government regulations further slow down the rate of technological progress. For example, the underlying technology behind cell phones was around in the 1950s, but it was delayed by several decades because the FCC bureaucracy couldn't move its fat lazy butt out of the way to allow it to be developed! And nowhere is government interventionism more painful than in the energy production industry, which slows everything else as well. If the government had stayed the same size it was in 1900, we would have reached the level of technological development we have today by 1970!

Utterly preposterous baloney. Government regulation has saved the economy from environmental degredation, from large scale poverty multiplying into mass scale poverty and has ensured that science has been directed to business and kept banks more honest than they ever were previously.

Government investment has kick started countless inventions that today we take for granted that previously there was seen to be little money in developing.

Alex Libman · Sep 20, 2009

creation said:
Utterly preposterous baloney. Government regulation has saved the economy from environmental degredation, from large scale poverty multiplying into mass scale poverty and has ensured that science has been directed to business and kept banks more honest than they ever were previously.

The government is the #1 polluter in the world, it stands in the way of much more effective pollution controls that would be based on natural law (i.e. property rights), and it does immense damage to economic growth, which is what really lifts people out of poverty.

Its corrupt monopoly on regulation (of banks or anything else) creates a single point of failure and a false sense of security, while in reality stifling the flexibility, resilience, and innovation that decentralized free market quality assurance / certification services would bring!

creation said:
Government investment has kick started countless inventions that today we take for granted that previously there was seen to be little money in developing.

Why do you assume that the capital it has stolen in order to finance itself wouldn't have had a greater impact if it was allocated voluntarily, without the inefficiency and corruption that the violent government monopoly tends to bring? That irrational assumption can only be based on the blind faith that the government has indoctrinated you with through its control of education and the media!

creation · Sep 20, 2009

Alex Libman said:
The government is the #1 polluter in the world, it stands in the way of much more effective pollution controls that would be based on natural law (i.e. property rights), and it does immense damage to economic growth, which is what really lifts people out of poverty.

Its corrupt monopoly on regulation (of banks or anything else) creates a single point of failure and a false sense of security, while in reality stifling the flexibility, resilience, and innovation that decentralized free market quality assurance / certification services would bring!

Thank you.

The government is only the no.1 polluter in the world when you include command economies. As for places like the USA, the government is not such a polluter. Even for its pollution it has on the other hand created national parks and protected lands that would long ago have been put under concrete had the free market had its way.

Pollution controls based on property rights are exactly what leads to wide scale deforestation as the short term profit comes before the national interests every time.

Its monopoly on regulation is both necessary and warranted as the power in the land. It creates a real sense of security that prevents runs on banks and continual bubbles such as you had previously and would have if banks could run things themselves - one look at Enron should enlighten the open mind.
Free market quality assurance/ certification are about as trustworthy as stock analysis of Enron prior to its collapse.

Why do you assume that the capital it has stolen in order to finance itself wouldn't have had a greater impact if it was allocated voluntarily, without the inefficiency and corruption that the violent government monopoly tends to bring? That irrational assumption can only be based on the blind faith that the government has indoctrinated you with through its control of education and the media!

Firstly because government action and power is required to ensure efficient markets, because governments are no more corrupt than private businesses and because it is governments, who dont always have to make a profit that can and do take the leaps that the free market dont and doesnt take.

Please do not tell me Im indoctrinated, as this will get us nowhere.

DrunkenAsparagus · Sep 20, 2009

creation said:
Thank you.

Its monopoly on regulation is both necessary and warranted as the power in the land. It creates a real sense of security that prevents runs on banks and continual bubbles such as you had previously and would have if banks could run things themselves - one look at Enron should enlighten the open mind.
Free market quality assurance/ certification are about as trustworthy as stock analysis of Enron prior to its collapse.

Enron was just one of millions of businesses and companies that do far more good than bad for the economy and society. You really don't want to get into the who's more corrupt game. There's Teapot Dome, corruption with Native Americans, Credit Moblier, and their botched attempt to sell off land in the 1873 that led to rampant speculation.

creation said:
Firstly because government action and power is required to ensure efficient markets, because governments are no more corrupt than private businesses and because it is governments, who dont always have to make a profit that can and do take the leaps that the free market dont and doesnt take.

You lost me after the first sentence. Business's corruption can never hope to hold a candle to the manipulation, coercion, and corruption of government.

creation said:
Please do not tell me Im indoctrinated, as this will get us nowhere.

creation · Sep 20, 2009

DrunkenAsparagus said:
Enron was just one of millions of businesses and companies that do far more good than bad for the economy and society. You really don't want to get into the who's more corrupt game. There's Teapot Dome, corruption with Native Americans, Credit Moblier, and their botched attempt to sell off land in the 1873 that led to rampant speculation.

Thank you.

Enron was a large corporation that actually created power shortages to rip off millions, it manipulated politicians to get its way and left thousands bereft in the end, who took up the slack for these people in the end? Thats right, government.

For every corruption scandal in government there are numerous cases in the private market and private corps even go to the trouble of trying to corrupt government by buying influence over and above their individual voting power. Stunning that you should mention Credit Mobilier since this was an attempt by a private body of people to influence, manipulate and rip off the government and the public.

You lost me after the first sentence. Business's corruption can never hope to hold a candle to the manipulation, coercion, and corruption of government.

Sure it can, its bigger bolder, has alot more money and is prepared to use it and has done.

DrunkenAsparagus · Sep 20, 2009

creation said:
Thank you.

Enron was a large corporation that actually created power shortages to rip off millions, it manipulated politicians to get its way and left thousands bereft in the end, who took up the slack for these people in the end? Thats right, government.

Enron was one of millions that do nothing seriously wrong. Who picks up the slack for government 99.9% of the time. The taxpayers i.e. business.

creation said:
For every corruption scandal in government there are numerous cases in the private market and private corps even go to the trouble of trying to corrupt government by buying influence over and above their individual voting power. Stunning that you should mention Credit Mobilier since this was an attempt by a private body of people to influence, manipulate and rip off the government and the public.

Business is going to do what's in its self interest. This is to be expected. Government is in the interests of everyone. It's up to government to not fall for the temptation. They are the enablers to virtually all of the corruption that you mention. Without big government, 99% of this almost entirely trivial crap wouldn't happen. It's Uncle Sam's fault.

creation said:
Sure it can, its bigger bolder, has alot more money and is prepared to use it and has done.

They can't send a man with a gun to your house if you don't do what they say. Comparing business's power over individuals to government's is like comparing a mouse's power to an elephant's.

Alex Libman · Sep 21, 2009

creation said:
The government is only the no.1 polluter in the world when you include command economies. As for places like the USA, the government is not such a polluter.

See here.

Furthermore, governments also cause wars and slow down economic growth, which also leads to far greater pollution than there would be in their absence.

creation said:
Even for its pollution it has on the other hand created national parks and protected lands that would long ago have been put under concrete had the free market had its way.

The free market isn't out to destroy every tree, it is out to increase the value of privately owned land, and, objectively speaking, the human civilization currently has too many trees and not enough development. When there's too much developed land and not enough nature, this would create a financial incentive to convert land into private parks, nature preserves, safaris, zoos, botanical gardens, etc, etc, etc - whatever people value, and thus are willing to pay for.

(See my recent arguments on this issue elsewhere.)

creation said:
Pollution controls based on property rights are exactly what leads to wide scale deforestation as the short term profit comes before the national interests every time.

See here.

And why would anyone put short term profit ahead of long term profit? Sure, someone might be dying of cancer and have no heirs, but most people do have an interest in what happens to their property in the future. Politicians, on the other hand, most often know when they'll need to run for re-election and when they'll be out of office.

And nationalism is a collectivist delusion. You don't have any sort of magical bond with people of your country that you can't have with someone from Canada or Mexico or Nigeria. You own yourself, that's what counts the most, and you probably have some people you deliberately care about, or have explicit binding agreements with. People should be judged based on their individual merits, not what side of an imaginary line their mother birthed them on!

creation said:
Its monopoly on regulation is both necessary and warranted as the power in the land.

The government cannot own land. There is a rational basis for natural rights, including property rights, and they only apply to specific individuals who own themselves and thus the consequences of their actions (aka capital). The government is just an abstraction backed by blunt force. It didn't bring this land into the human economy, individual people did!

creation said:
It creates a real sense of security that prevents runs on banks and continual bubbles such as you had previously and would have if banks could run things themselves [...]

What you're advocating here is taking the placebo instead of the real medicine.

creation said:
Free market quality assurance / certification are about as trustworthy as stock analysis of Enron prior to its collapse.

You're failing to understand the value of neutrality and decentralization.

Enron is interested in covering Enron's butt. The government is interested in covering the government's butt - and Enron's too, because it gets money from Enron, and the government is very easily corrupted. In a free market Enron would have to prove its trustworthiness to its stakeholders to their satisfaction, which naturally means being audited by neutral agencies that live or die by their reputation for objectivity and independence.

creation said:
Firstly because government action and power is required to ensure efficient markets, because governments are no more corrupt than private businesses and because it is governments, who dont always have to make a profit that can and do take the leaps that the free market dont and doesnt take.

Please do not tell me Im indoctrinated, as this will get us nowhere.

You are making statements that can only be backed by faith, and not by reason.

American · Sep 29, 2009

dragondad said:
You're going to run into this often with scientists and economists.

Over 50% describe themselves Democrats...just 6% Republicans.

People with high IQ's, well trained in using critical thinking skills, and questioning everthing they are told, can see right through right wing propaganda.

But there is nothing wrong with interjecting values and political beliefs into an op-ed if you remain consistent in your arguments and your facts are correct.

This is what drives right wingers crazy about Krugman. He's been right about almost everything over the last 10 years including his criticism of Alan Greenspan when he was being treated like a God by the right wing.

Remember those days? When Bush and the GOP Congress would brag about the housing industry growing the economy???....They rode that bubble all the way to the end....LOL

Go ahead and turn this thread into a bull**** session by using Dem talking points about how stupid Republicans are. I don't mind see your threads fail, doesn't bother me any. Does it bother you? If not, keep the foolishness coming.

swdowning · Sep 30, 2009

dragondad said:
They've touted Milton Friedman and the "Chicago School" for thirty years and it's been a miserable failure.

But the monetary policies we thrived on when Bill Clinton was president are better because he replaced Friedman with... um, wait... oh, he didn't replace Friedman? Really?

Oh.

OK, never mind.

Kushinator · Sep 30, 2009

Alex Libman said:
What you fail to understand is that government force doesn't somehow magically add technological competence.

Nor have i argued that it did.

It steals

Steal? That is a strong choice of wording. How can it be stealing when government provides them (private sector) many services that are vital for their economic survival?

("taxes") capital from the private sector,

That's more like it. Taxing is what the government does to pay for roads, bridges, safety, etc.... It is highly unproductive to conduct business outside of protected, developed geographical realms. American businesses are flocking to area's such as China, India, Malaysia etc... because their governments have provided guarantees on such necessities as transportation infrastructure, and security to push their declining marginal production on to "greener pastures".

which is highly productive and results-oriented

Of course it is... I am not arguing to the contrary.

This is a net loss!

Obviously not. Otherwise, we would see "big business" flocking into area's such as Somalia with private security forces and building their own industrial infrastructure in which to "bypass" the cost of production related to several forms of taxation.

The idea that the government can contribute something to the economy is as ridiculous as the idea of a man lifting himself off the ground by pulling on his bootstraps!

The government does, and has for quite a long time. During following WWII, the lack of the rest of the worlds productive capacity was left scorched, while ours remained fully intact due to operating at full capacity in fueling the US War machine. The long and dubious love affair with our technological progression and the military industrial complex is well documented.

Furthermore, government regulations further slow down the rate of technological progress. For example, the underlying technology behind cell phones was around in the 1950s, but it was delayed by several decades because the FCC bureaucracy couldn't move its fat lazy butt out of the way to allow it to be developed!

Can you prove this statement? You can do so by providing the date when the first cellular service was proposed to the FCC. Don't worry, i'll wait:2wave:

And nowhere is government interventionism more painful than in the energy production industry, which slows everything else as well. If the government had stayed the same size it was in 1900, we would have reached the level of technological development we have today by 1970!

Do tell how the rate of technological progression is both tested, and what the effects of government intervention are in regards to advancement. Will you find something to prove your assertion besides the opinion of some random anarchist?

Alex Libman · Sep 30, 2009

Goldenboy219 said:
Steal? That is a strong choice of wording. How can it be stealing when government provides them (private sector) many services that are vital for their economic survival? [...]

Ah, so I should feel free to break into your house and take whatever I want as long as I bring you some trinket in return and then make a ludicrous claim that this trinket is "vital" for you, whether you want it or not?

Any involuntary transfer of wealth is theft, period.

The government needs the private sector. The private sector does not need government.

(New rule - anyone who fails to understand that Somalia is a fragmented communist theocracy -- the very opposite of free market capitalism -- goes in the penalty box for a week.)

Kushinator · Sep 30, 2009

Alex Libman said:
Ah, so I should feel free to break into your house and take whatever I want as long as I bring you some trinket in return and then make a ludicrous claim that this trinket is "vital" for you, whether you want it or not?

Piss poor analogy.

Whether or not you accept it, the fact remains that our highway and transportation systems funded by the US government serve as (get it, governmental service) an enormous benefit to essentially every commercial and industrial business entity. The fact that if someone tries to steal or rob them, they will have police assistance and protection is essential in "keeping them prices low".

Any involuntary transfer of wealth is theft, period.

And that is what everything is about in your world? "me me me! I do what i want!" Sorry to say, this is not reality. If you have a job that requires you to wear presentable business attire, and you "don't wanna!", you (in most cases) don't want a job. Therefore you are required to enact positive freedom.

If you walk down the sidewalks, and drive down the streets, you are using a government service. Bragging about "free riding" does very little to help your cause, and brands you as a hypocrite.

The government needs the private sector. The private sector does not need government.

Wrong! Without military and police protection, systems of industrial and commercial transportation infrastructure (of which the private market cannot efficiently fund themselves), the private sector does not operate in efficient capacity.

You have yet to answer my question as to when the first proposition of private cellular service was proposed to the FCC, although you claim the FCC blocked it in the 1950's. Care to prove your statements?

Secondly, explain how railroad construction was implemented during the 19th century in the push westward?

(New rule - anyone who fails to understand that Somalia is a fragmented communist theocracy -- the very opposite of free market capitalism -- goes in the penalty box for a week.)

Could you not just hire your own private security force and set up shop there? You wouldn't have to pay anyone taxes, and you could build as far as you could securely control. There is a reason why the avenue has not been followed; its more efficient to have a government provide those things for you:2razz:

Badfish420 · Sep 30, 2009

Alex Libman said:
Any involuntary transfer of wealth is theft, period.

its called redistribution and its the only reason we have roads, schools, police departments, fire departments, hospitals, welfare, national security... the list goes on and on

The government needs the private sector. The private sector does not need government.

untill the private sector has no government funding anymore

Agnapostate · Sep 30, 2009

We can openly laugh at the premise that extraction of wealth from the upper classes constitutes "theft" due to their inheritance of those assets from a long phase of primitive accumulation of capital when the state was openly allied with the capital class --- in other words, even if taxation allegedly constitutes some present "initiation of force," the lack of it permits the capital class to hoard assets gained from previous initiations of force. When we also consider the fact that class regimentation and the inequalities in the labor market permit them to coerce wage laborers into exploitative relationships where their surplus labor and consequently, surplus value is extracted, we can see that capital accumulation itself is based on theft in that context. More importantly, we can observe the economic benefits of redistribution through consultation of such empirical sources as Clemens and Heinemann's On the effects of redistribution on growth and entrepreneurial risk-taking:

If the presence of risk goes along with less entrepreneurial activity and subsequently lower growth, a natural question to ask is to what extent an appropriately designed public tax-transfer-scheme might stimulate firm ownership, if private markets for pooling individual risks are not available due to credit market imperfections or moral hazard problems. These considerations draw from an argument first brought forward by Varian (1980), Eaton and Rosen (1980) and Sinn (1996). The authors point out that redistributive taxation — being effective ex post — acts as a social insurance, thereby providing incentives to already increase risk-taking from an ex ante point of view.

If only, dear Libman, if only...:2wave:

Alex Libman · Oct 2, 2009

Goldenboy219 said:
Piss poor analogy.

No, it's not. The value of a product or service cannot be established by the seller's claims alone, the buyer must consent to it. The government takes taxes and forces its services on everyone without individual consent.

Goldenboy219 said:
Whether or not you accept it, the fact remains that our highway and transportation systems funded by the US government serve as (get it, governmental service) an enormous benefit to essentially every commercial and industrial business entity. The fact that if someone tries to steal or rob them, they will have police assistance and protection is essential in "keeping them prices low".

A violent monopoly does not magically guarantee cost-effectiveness, the free market naturally does. Roads can be owned privately, and funded through billboards, tolls, local business interests, homeowners' associations, etc. The same applies to protection agencies as well. Furthermore, the examples you bring up do fall in the minarchist territory, and constitute only a tiny fraction of government spending, and are mostly done by municipal governments, which are the least illegitimate.

Goldenboy219 said:
And that is what everything is about in your world? "me me me! I do what i want!" Sorry to say, this is not reality. If you have a job that requires you to wear presentable business attire, and you "don't wanna!", you (in most cases) don't want a job. Therefore you are required to enact positive freedom.

Um, this is DebatePolitics.com - not DressForSuccess.com, CareerAdvancement.com, SelfDiscipline.com, LocalCharities.com, etc. I do not come here to brag about my unimpeachable work ethic, I come here to debunk socialists lies.

Goldenboy219 said:
If you walk down the sidewalks, and drive down the streets, you are using a government service. Bragging about "free riding" does very little to help your cause, and brands you as a hypocrite.

In a freer society more streets and sidewalks would be privately owned. Being subject to government force does not make me a hypocrite.

Goldenboy219 said:
Wrong! Without military and police protection, systems of industrial and commercial transportation infrastructure (of which the private market cannot efficiently fund themselves), the private sector does not operate in efficient capacity.

If you believe that police and transportation monopolies are so great, why not move to a place where everything is a government monopoly, like in Cuba or North Korea?

Goldenboy219 said:
You have yet to answer my question as to when the first proposition of private cellular service was proposed to the FCC, although you claim the FCC blocked it in the 1950's. Care to prove your statements?

I remember it being mentioned on a reputable libertarian radio show a year or two ago, but I can't find the source right now. I could spend more than 5 minutes finding a source, or I could concede and retreat on this one claim I've made. I'll do the latter.

Goldenboy219 said:
Secondly, explain how railroad construction was implemented during the 19th century in the push westward?

Many railroads did succumb to the temptation of using government force, but the better ones did not.

Goldenboy219 said:
Could you not just hire your own private security force and set up shop there? You wouldn't have to pay anyone taxes, and you could build as far as you could securely control. There is a reason why the avenue has not been followed; its more efficient to have a government provide those things for you

The Somali government(s) are too powerful. The government is still more restrained in the United States (particularly New Hampshire) than elsewhere in the world - otherwise I wouldn't be here.

Badfish420 said:
its called redistribution and its the only reason we have roads, schools, police departments, fire departments, hospitals, welfare, national security... the list goes on and on

Yes, no one can wipe their butt without mommy government. :roll:

Badfish420 said:
untill the private sector has no government funding anymore

If it gets government funding, then it's not really "private sector".

Badfish420 · Oct 3, 2009

Alex Libman said:
If it gets government funding, then it's not really "private sector".

as long as its owned by individuals and not the government its private sector. do the bailouts make the banks state property? no

Right Wing Ideology Fails in Economics As Well

JimboJ

Alex Libman

Kushinator

I'm not-low all the time

Agent_Grey

Member

Kushinator

I'm not-low all the time

Agent_Grey

Member

DrunkenAsparagus

Devourer of Poor Children

phattonez

Catholic

Alex Libman

creation

Alex Libman

creation

DrunkenAsparagus

Devourer of Poor Children

creation

DrunkenAsparagus

Devourer of Poor Children

Alex Libman

American

Trump Grump Whisperer

swdowning

Member

Kushinator

I'm not-low all the time

Alex Libman

Kushinator

I'm not-low all the time

Badfish420

Active member

Agnapostate

Alex Libman

Badfish420

Active member