• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A "Free Market" System is Not Sensible

Is a "Free Market" System Sensible?

  • Total voters
    34
sKiTzo:

From: http://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.5.010310/full/

For the 34 countries that make up 80% of the world's population, I derived a high estimate of 772 000 and a low estimate of 297 000. Renormalizing for 100% of the population yields 964 000 and 372 000. The world might not have a million physicists, but that's the right order of magnitude.
Click to expand...

There are far more physicists doing research and applications than 10,000. You yourself are falling victim to the fictions which you claim guide society. Data and facts are important.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
It seems to me that you are simply proposing that we replace the rigged "free market" system we have with one that is rigged more to your liking.
Click to expand...

Basically, however with one important difference; We "rig" it to a system that promotes--The people doing the overwhelming bulk of the work should be quasi-proportionally related to the ones reaping the benefits (which is not at all our current model). In order to ensure this, we would still operate under a "Market" system, but simply constrain the Market by switching off of a "preference based" value to a "utility based" value structure. Practically, this would be enforced by regulatory incentives.

That is, this is not just "more to my liking", but rather "more consistent to the necessities of what our current society is based upon (Science & Tech, ect. ect.) on an objective basis"
 
Evilroddy said:
sKiTzo:

From: http://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.5.010310/full/



There are far more physicists doing research and applications than 10,000. You yourself are falling victim to the fictions which you claim guide society. Data and facts are important.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

dMathFanx:

Err!?! My apologies. Post #51 should have been addressed to xMathFanx. I got myself mixed up. Sorry about that. Between following debates concerning Economics and Evolution I can get mixed up sometimes.

Cheers.
A befuddled Evilroddy.
 
Evilroddy said:
sKiTzo:

From: http://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.5.010310/full/



There are far more physicists doing research and applications than 10,000. You yourself are falling victim to the fictions which you claim guide society. Data and facts are important.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...


The article you cited defines Physicist exceedingly broadly. To quote him/her:

"Deriving the number of physicists in a country based on its population depends on a number of assumptions, not least the definition of a physicist. Although there are several ways to define a physicist, the original question was about Physics Today's potential readership. Given that the magazine's print subscribers all belong to one or more of the 10 societies that make up the American Institute of Physics, I chose to define a physicist as someone who belongs to a national physics society."

By this criteria, I could qualify as a Physicist by simply applying to the American Physics Society (APS) considering I double major in Math & Physics at Uni. This is not even close to valid. Also, note, many "Physicists" under a very broad definition would include people with Graduate degrees that go into Industry, Engineering, ect. ect. rather than pure Physics research. However, your larger point is noted considering the true number is measured on the scale of 10,000's rather than strictly 10,000 (which is too much of a low-ball figure). My fundamental point remains unchanged. As an example, there are about 2000 or less Quantum Physicists in the World and only about 8000 Astrophysicists

Edit: It would literally be free for me to become a member today with the APS: https://www.aps.org/membership/student.cfm
This hardly represents what it is like becoming to become a Physicist nor how many there are in the World. Your data and criteria are fundamentally flawed
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
As compared to what, exactly? I voted yes when compared to something like China has.
Click to expand...

China is blowing the doors off the USA. Vietnam is also doing immensely well. If the US operated in a capitalist fashion it might be one thing but it doesn't. The US is a predatory nation. You folks like to use euphemisms like "Imperialism".

I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents. - Smedley Butler
 
xMathFanx said:
Basically, however with one important difference; We "rig" it to a system that promotes--The people doing the overwhelming bulk of the work should be quasi-proportionally related to the ones reaping the benefits (which is not at all our current model). In order to ensure this, we would still operate under a "Market" system, but simply constrain the Market by switching off of a "preference based" value to a "utility based" value structure. Practically, this would be enforced by regulatory incentives.

That is, this is not just "more to my liking", but rather "more consistent to the necessities of what our current society is based upon (Science & Tech, ect. ect.) on an objective basis"
Click to expand...

You keep using a lot of words to say "people are stupid, and I want to force them to make the choices I, personally, think are better, for the common good."

Why not just say it plainly?
 
xMathFanx said:
A "Free Market" System is Not Sensible

Society does not necessarily always value rational things, and others are able to profit tremendously off of the stupidity/ignorance/ect. of the masses that support it. Examples of this are Musicians, actors, athletes, celebrities ect. ect. that in a rational society, are definitely not necessarily more deserving than an Engineer for instance (as our modern world is based on Science and Tech, not Rap/Justin Beiber-type Pop music, Kim Kardashian's ass, ect. ect).

Consider, a huge portion of the nation's wealth is being put into sectors of society that serve no real productive purpose/lack in value while areas of high value such as intellectual pursuits are dramatically underfunded and discouraged (in many respects). This is due to society at large sharing the same collective delusions and valuing trivial bullsh't over serious, productive endeavors. This will always incentivize and produce a non-rational society unless structures are fundamentally challenged/altered.

Lets take Professional athletes as the first example:

NBA- Out of 456 players in the league in 2017-18, 120 make $10,000,000 or more for one years worth of work and 389 make more than $1,000,000. The minimum salary for a 1st year player is over $800,000 per year. Links here:
A. ESPN: The Worldwide Leader in Sports
B. Minimum Salary Scales under the 2017 CBA

NFL- Minimum salary for 1st year players is over $450,000 per year. 656 players make at least $1,000,000 per year or more. Links here:
A. NFL Minimum Salaries for 2017 | The Daily Spot
B. https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/salary.htm

MLB- 112 players make $10,000,000 or more per year. Out of 251 players total, 240 make $1,000,000 or more per year

Actors and musicians that "make it" get huge salaries and the ones that don't get salaries on par with other "common" jobs.

Now, contrast that to absolutely necessary fields such as Science & Maths, Engineering, Architecture, Construction Work, Waste Management, Medical Doctors, Teachers, Repairs, Farming, Electricians, Labor Intensive work, ect. ect. and fields that, although not necessary, should be prioritized/held in high esteem in a non-superficial, deep, passionate, engaged society (i.e. rational) such as Literature, History, Philosophy, Art, ect. ect.

Consider the process of becoming a Scientist (which, depending on the subject matter, is perhaps the chief field pushing innovation forward that makes all of our lives orders of magnitude more comfortable than our ancestors could have ever dreamed of--as well as revealing deep truths about the nature of our existence and the universe). One must first pay large sums of money to attend a school for 4-5 years, then proceed to further schooling for another 5-7 years (while attempting to live off of a stipend of $15,000-$25,000 or so per year--i.e.very poor), then must find a post-doc position for another 3-7 years or so which is typically only $20,000-$35,000 a year, by which time a person has been nearly dirt poor for a 15 years or more and then, finally, may find a research/professorship position (however there is absolutely no guarantee since the funding is so low due to the irrationality I have discussed--thus competition is fierce) or they very well may end up empty handed (no Science research job and/or professorship) even after that approaching two decade long process. Here are some of the fundamental questions involved:

Why in the Hell do we treat some of the greatest minds amongst us doing work that is absolutely imperative so poorly? Why do we treat others doing necessary work (e.g. Construction Workers, sewer management, ect.) so poorly? Why are we putting people who do not contribute anything to the productivity of society and/or our expanding knowledge about ourselves/the Universe up on a pedestal (e.g. Katy Perry, Kardashians, Pro Athletes, ect. ect.)?

Do you see any problems with this, or do you believe that the Market is the best determining agent in matters such as this?
Click to expand...

Yeah, good luck with this lot.

I generally support the Scandinavian model of highly taxed and regulated economies, if you're wondering where I stand.
 
xMathFanx wrote:

Now, the economy already is "rigged", so all you would have to do is "rig" it in a different direction (as well as the imperative of getting people more interested in productive, creative, activities rather than frivolousness--note, rigging the economy would in it of itself shift peoples interests due to the incentive structure). That is, jobs that have high utility value (e.g. "Blue Collar" laborers, Architects, Scientists, ect.) objectively contribute far more to society than Justin Bieber (although the current system incentive structure would suggest that this is the other way around). The current Market system is based on preference value while I am arguing for a utility value system.
Click to expand...

The present-day riggers will not passively relinquish control to you in order to re-engineer what they regard as THEIR well functioning political economy. They will use their wealth, their political "juice", the talents of very effective people in their employ, advertising and propaganda, influence peddling, the law, the justice system (not to be confused with the law), the surveillance state, domestic and international intelligence organs, their control of the nomination process of the political system, gerrymandering of electoral districts, voter suppression, fixed elections, and if all else fails a bullet or a bomb to stop you. Are you willing to die in order to see the readjustment of value towards what you regard as utility? Because in the end, fundamental revolutions of political economy usually degenerate into desperate and bloody political death-matches for control and promotion of the powerful biases and illusions which bulwark competing ideological belief systems. That's why so many revolutionaries are hunted down and either co-opted or destroyed, before they become a serious threat to the power elites. It is a cruel truth, but it is also reality in most of the world including democratic America.

Cheers?
Evilroddy.
 
Last edited:
Yes_Minister said:
Depends, what kind of socialism are we talking about? Norway is a social democracy, is it really that bad off?

I will say one thing, stagnant wages and a growing income gap is going to cause more problems the longer it goes unaddressed.
Click to expand...

Stagnant wages is a myth. Many states have minimum wages higher than the federal minimum wage and 18 states are raising their wage in January. This doesn't even address local minimum wages. On top of that, the market has demanded most employers to pay more than minimum wage.
 
poweRob said:
Free Market is just a polite way of saying "we, the rich and powerful, don't want regulations so that we can make all the rules" and lo and behold, they reap all the rewards of such a system. There needs to be regulation and rules to any system... or the system is just fake.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Hell, the term "free market" is itself a propaganda term maintained by the uberrich and those who enable them. It sure isn't free for the other 99%!
 
Harshaw said:
You keep using a lot of words to say "people are stupid, and I want to force them to make the choices I, personally, think are better, for the common good."

Why not just say it plainly?
Click to expand...

No. This is your conjecture regarding my position on human intelligence (which, although you are picking up on some things accurately, the conclusion you arrive at is very wrong indeed). Actually, even average range human intelligence is consistent with prodigious intellectual potential. I am more upset that humanity is overwhelmingly wasting their gifts to such an extent that, given our current system, is likely to self-destruct within the next 1-3 centuries if a fundamental shift does not occur.

Note, many people's distractions also fall in line with what is currently incentivized/glorified/respected/honored in our society. Many people will always have trouble "breaking the mold" of societal norms (in my view) because there is good reason to believe that average range human intelligence or below is only intelligent enough to understand the rules of the society for which they were born into or otherwise are later introduced to and become acclimated with (although even this, the latter, falls into the higher range of average human intelligence compared to the former). Now, even with this dynamic, we can produce a highly healthy, rational, productive, intellectual, creative society if the framework is properly structured (e.g. think Star Trek).

Average range human intelligence is consistent with becoming Scientists, Mathematicians, Engineers, Architects, Intellectuals generally, ect. ect. (to varying degrees of success). It is not consistent with anybody becoming an unprecedented genius such as Newton, ect. ect. as this is on the exceedingly high end aberration of Human intellect, however this is also not necessitated to do fundamental intellectual activity
 
Phys251 said:
Exactly. Hell, the term "free market" is itself a propaganda term maintained by the uberrich and those who enable them. It sure isn't free for the other 99%!
Click to expand...

Free market makes as much sense as believing football would be better if you just got rid of the referees and let them line up wherever. Or let NASCAR turn into a a 200 mph demolition derby. Or baseball with no bases.
 
poweRob said:
Free market makes as much sense as believing football would be better if you just got rid of the referees and let them line up wherever.
Click to expand...

This is actually a very apt analogy and "objective referees" in order to promote open "fair play" is essentially my premise.
 
xMathFanx said:
No. This is your conjecture regarding my position on human intelligence (which, although you are picking up on some things accurately, the conclusion you arrive at is very wrong indeed). Actually, even average range human intelligence is consistent with prodigious intellectual potential. I am more upset that humanity is overwhelmingly wasting their gifts to such an extent that, given our current system, is likely to self-destruct within the next 1-3 centuries if a fundamental shift does not occur.

Note, many people's distractions also fall in line with what is currently incentivized/glorified/respected/honored in our society. Many people will always have trouble "breaking the mold" of societal norms (in my view) because there is good reason to believe that average range human intelligence or below is only intelligent enough to understand the rules of the society for which they were born into or otherwise are later introduced to and become acclimated with (although even this, the latter, falls into the higher range of average human intelligence compared to the former). Now, even with this dynamic, we can produce a highly healthy, rational, productive, intellectual, creative society if the framework is properly structured (e.g. think Star Trek).

Average range human intelligence is consistent with becoming Scientists, Mathematicians, Engineers, Architects, Intellectuals generally, ect. ect. (to varying degrees of success). It is not consistent with anybody becoming an unprecedented genius such as Newton, ect. ect. as this is on the exceedingly high end aberration of Human intellect, however this is also not necessitated to do fundamental intellectual activity
Click to expand...

"People are stupid. We need to force them into making the choices I personally think they should make. For the greater good."

This is, in fact, what you're saying.

Tell me this: who are you, exactly, to determine what's the greater good for society? You're a college student, aren't you? What qualifications do you think you have, at this stage in your education and life experience, to make these kinds of sweeping determinations? For that matter, aren't you a math and physics major? What exactly do you study which makes you think you understand people and the social dynamics which will produce a better society?
 
wellwisher said:
The free market attempts to simulate nature, in the sense of competition for resources and natural selection. The most efficient is selected. We pay the best ball players the most; selection. When humans attempt to control the free market with government regulation, this is no longer a simulation of natural selection. This is artificial selection. It is no longer green or natural.

The concern of xMathFanx is really connected to a subset of the free market, called supply side economics. This market is free, however, it is driven by the supply side, and not the demand side. The analogy is a group of predators migrate to a new territory. The only food supply that is available is rabbit. These predators may be omnivores and may like and prefer other types of foods, but the supply side of the food is limited to rabbits, with the rabbits competing for their own space and food. The predators compete and eat the default food; ticket prices go up.

An alternative would be demand side economics, within a free market framework. In the example above, since there are only rabbits, there is not much leverage for the demand side wishes of the predators, other than which rabbit they will eat. A true demand side free market scenario, would be where the consumers listed what they wanted, and the supply side adjusts its output of resources, to meet this demand. In terms of a natural scenario, this would be like the predators all getting together and deciding they want deer, rabbit and squirrel, in that order. Suddenly, nature makes this appear like magic. This is not very likely in the natural environment. The environment does what it does, based on internal competition. The predators needs to adapt to that food supply or migrate to another place.

The underlying reason for the natural preference of a supply side driven free market, is the supply side obtains its goods and services, from people who can creativity come up with ideas, that they can implement and offer the free market. This creates a tangible output from people who can make things happen. Demand side might be creative, but demand side depends on others to create the tangible output. The result is demand side hands off its wises to the supply side. We are back to supply side.

For example, if I can juggle and I am good at it, there is a natural path for me, to a tangible free market output, that has quality; juggle act. If someone demands me do the high wire act, I am not good at this. Even if I try to meet that demand, my quality will be low. The demand will be limited even by the original demander. It is much easier to produce quality, if I do what I am are good at, and then enter the free market from the supply side. The same is true in nature. Each environment offers a food supply based on what it is best suited to make, via natural selection. It is hard for the environment to materialize demand side wises and dreams, unless these dreams appear in a creator, who then offers it to the environment. If new tree mutated to produce apples, demand will appear.

Another analogy may be the house wife wants to expand the kitchen by knocking out an outside wall. This is a good idea, however, it is not something she can do. Her demand is dependent on the supply side producing this as a tangible result. Demand side cannot produce results without supply side, but supply side can produce even before there is demand. Nobody knew they demanded, Facebook, before it was added to the supply chain. This stroke of genius came from someone who was good at this and offered it to the free environment as a food source.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, supply side falls apart when capital concentrates enough.

It then becomes expedient to simply expend capital to acquire resources with no other intent than to withhold them to extract higher prices.
 
Moderate Right said:
Stagnant wages is a myth. Many states have minimum wages higher than the federal minimum wage and 18 states are raising their wage in January. This doesn't even address local minimum wages. On top of that, the market has demanded most employers to pay more than minimum wage.
Click to expand...

If you say so, is the growing income gap a myth as well?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-21/why-wages-aren-t-growing

U.S. inequality keeps getting uglier - Dec. 22, 2016
 
Harshaw said:
"People are stupid. We need to force them into making the choices I personally think they should make. For the greater good."

This is, in fact, what you're saying.
Click to expand...

No, I stated "what I am saying". The overwhelming bulk of people are caught up in "The Tide of the Times" no matter how good or bad that "wave" may be. Now, if placed inside a highly intellectual environment, a person of average range intelligence will develop higher order education, reasoning, logic, mathematical ability ect. ect. (e.g. such as is depicted in Star Trek). Likewise, if a person of average range intelligence is brought up in a society that is profoundly anti-intellectual and actively de-values such traits, then not only will their potential be squandered, but their intellectual capacities (such as listed above) will atrophy with time. I want to support the former and keep the latter at bay.
 
Harshaw said:
Tell me this: who are you, exactly, to determine what's the greater good for society?
Click to expand...

I have already addressed this at length. Do you want me to re-post it here just for you?
 
xMathFanx said:
No, I stated "what I am saying". The overwhelming bulk of people are caught up in "The Tide of the Times" no matter how good or bad that "wave" may be. Now, if placed inside a highly intellectual environment, a person of average range intelligence will develop higher order education, reasoning, logic, mathematical ability ect. ect. (e.g. such as is depicted in Star Trek). Likewise, if a person of average range intelligence is brought up in a society that is profoundly anti-intellectual and actively de-values such traits, then not only will their potential be squandered, but their intellectual capacities (such as listed above) will atrophy with time. I want to support the former and keep the latter at bay.
Click to expand...

OK, now you're talking about restructuring not just the market, but society itself, which is a whole other rotten can of worms. And you want to do so because you think you're smarter than the bulk of humanity.

I don't think you know enough history or political philosophy to understand exactly how fascist (the real fascism, not the grade-school taunt most use it as) what you're arguing for really is, and how many people have died because of its implementation.

I don't think you know enough history to know how many people were plowed under tank treads and starved into mass graves because someone at the top was "only trying to do what's better for everyone."

Which brings me back to my question:

Who are you, exactly, to determine what's the greater good for society? You're a college student, aren't you? What qualifications do you think you have, at this stage in your education and life experience, to make these kinds of sweeping determinations? For that matter, aren't you a math and physics major? What exactly do you study which makes you think you understand people and the social dynamics which will produce a better society?
 
xMathFanx said:
This is quite an odd accusation considering the model I am proposing is valuing productive work such as Construction Workers, Waste management, Repairs, "Blue Collar" intensive labor, ect. ect. as the near highest level of productive work/utility and thus pay-out..

In fact, what I am objecting to is the current "Elitism" of our system, in which our basic/primitive Mammalian predispositions are determining value way out of proportion to their actual contributions (e.g. Kardashians, Beiber types, Athletes, Actors, Celebrities, ect. ect. ect. These people are essentially put on a pedestal since they largely fit primitive notions of Alphas (e.g. they look strong/healthy/attractive and/or perform the type of Physical activities that you would expect of any other Ape if they were to get a bit more intelligent in the case of Athletes)).

You essentially inverted the model
Click to expand...

If Michael Jordan gets $20 million for a Nike shoe contract then I'm happy for the guy. And considering NIKE will likely earn billions of $ from his endorsement it is great that they share that profit with Jordan. Even you would object if NIKE refused to pay Jordan what he's worth to the company.

Our system isn't elitism. It's very democratic. If you can do what Michael Jordan can do, you also could make his money. Capitalism is competitive; it's very democratic. If a single auto mechanic could earn his employer billions of dollars you would see auto mechanics get $20 million dollar contracts. But that's not the case, is it? So an auto mechanic is paid what he's worth. Some make six figures working at a busy dealership, and they are fast enough to make flat rate pay very well. Others work for Walmart making $10 an hour. Both are paid what they are worth.

It's a simple system, really. Your earnings are based on what you can earn your employer. Or what you can earn as your own business. The people decide what they value and how much you will be paid. We vote with our dollars. Can't get more democratic than that.

BTW; that's where productivity comes in. As a worker becomes more productive, they earn more for the company, and should see their incomes rise as well. The fact that productivity gains haven't been shared with workers in the form of raises over the past couple decades is the closest I can come to your point of view. The reasons those gains are no longer shared is that workers can be replaced with automation and/or out sourced, so there is no longer any incentive for companies to share those productivity gains. And since they must remain competitive, a single company can't share those gains if their competition doesn't share those gains. Once again; how the world works; it's not about who deserves what, it's about the incentives.
 
Harshaw said:
OK, now you're talking about restructuring not just the market, but society itself, which is a whole other rotten can of worms. And you want to do so because you think you're smarter than the bulk of humanity.
Click to expand...

Restructuring society itself plays hand-in-hand with what I am promoting since productive fields will be incentivized.

Harshaw said:
And you want to do so because you think you're smarter than the bulk of humanity.
Click to expand...


Nice try, however your criteria generally does not fit. "Arrogant" is the only characteristic that could potentially apply to me, and even that is within a highly constrained framework (it is more true that I am "aware" of my place, which is many levels below my Professors and high enough above an untrained mind of average range human intelligence--my Professors, PhD students I'm friends with, ect. certainly wouldn't describe me as "arrogant". Rather, they understand that I "know my place" and undertaking training to advance it (although I will never be able to achieve a level at the higher ranges, you can either try and train towards it or twiddle your thumbs and give up). It is only when I converse with people like you (interestingly, this is the similar charge made by the general public toward Professional Scientists, intellectuals, ect. even though it is patently obvious that a Professional Scientist in the Natural Sciences is at least above average intelligence, if not higher, by present standards) that this claim comes out, due to your own deep intellectual insecurities/perspective/ect.--also, this dynamic applies in other areas of life as well.



Harshaw said:
"I don't think you know enough history or political philosophy to understand exactly how fascist (the real fascism, not the grade-school taunt most use it as) what you're arguing for really is, and how many people have died because of its implementation.

I don't think you know enough history to know how many people were plowed under tank treads and starved into mass graves because someone at the top was "only trying to do what's better for everyone...For that matter, aren't you a math and physics major? What exactly do you study which makes you think you understand people and the social dynamics which will produce a better society?"
Click to expand...

First, note, I'm a Senior Undergrad. and triple major in Math, Physics and History. I discussed my double major in Math & Physics previously because it was relevant to topic. I don't think this should become about formal credentials (or lack thereof) however (I'm presuming on some level you agree that one of the powers of an open forum such as this is that one is judged based on the power/merit of their ideas rather than their background)

I'm interested in History for exactly the reasons you were invoking (amongst others).

I understand that we are coming from quite different perspectives on this topic, however I have stated my bias while (even though your lean is listed) you have yet to discuss how that is effecting you view of the matter (which has been showing up persistently--and I have addressed some of these points already; although I will get back to you on the rest still).
 
Last edited:
Phys251 said:
Capitalism is like a dog: A well-trained, well-behaved, housebroken dog is an asset to any home. But a wild, undisciplined dog can be dangerous to humans.
Click to expand...

I agree markets need rules and constant regulation. Like, for example, honest and accurate measures. Long ago anyone giving short weight in an English market had an ear cut off. Imo the same penalty should apply to anyone trying to cheat in today's indescribably more complex markets.

I strongly believe that market economies are best and that they need cherishing.
 
xMathFanx said:
Restructuring society itself plays hand-in-hand with what I am promoting since productive fields will be incentivized.
Click to expand...

Wow. That's breathtaking. You have no awareness at all of the fascist, totalitarian stench of the things you say. Those of us who do can hear the jackboots marching.


Nice try, however your criteria generally does not fit. "Arrogant" is the only characteristic that could potentially apply to me, and even that is within a highly constrained framework (it is more true that I am "aware" of my place, which is many levels below my Professors and high enough above an untrained mind of average range human intelligence--my Professors, PhD students I'm friends with, ect. certainly wouldn't describe me as "arrogant". Rather, they understand that I "know my place" and undertaking training to advance it (although I will never be able to achieve a level at the higher ranges, you can either try and train towards it or twiddle your thumbs and give up). It is only when I converse with people like you (interestingly, this is the similar charge made by the general public toward Professional Scientists, intellectuals, ect. even though it is patently obvious that a Professional Scientist in the Natural Sciences is at least above average intelligence, if not higher, by present standards) that this claim comes out, due to your own deep intellectual insecurities/perspective/ect.--also, this dynamic applies in other areas of life as well.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know; you believe you're smarter than most people. Thus, you think you can better decide what choices they should make than they can.


First, note, I'm a Senior Undergrad. and triple major in Math, Physics and History. I discussed my double major in Math & Physics previously because it was relevant to topic. I don't think this should become about formal credentials (or lack thereof) however
Click to expand...

It's not about that.

It's about your own arrogance, which you acknowledge. Except you think your arrogance is justified. But it isn't. You're just a college kid who might someday accomplish something. But you haven't done it yet.

And all of this stuff about knowing your place in the order of things, well, that's standard brownshirt. The way you're talking is no different from Hans the energetic (and arrogant) SA recruit.

(I'm presuming on some level you agree that one of the powers of an open forum such as this is that one is judged based on the power/merit of their ideas rather than their background)
Click to expand...

The problem is, your ideas aren't new. They've been tried. They've been implemented. Stacks of bodies of followed, every time. One does not need to speak hypothetically. One can look at the actual results.

If you actually think your ideas are somehow different, and that the results would be any different, well, you're not exactly treading any new turf there, either. Every time these horrific plans to restructure society are trotted out, the people doing it think they're the ones who are going to get it "right," that they're the ones who have actually figured it out.

I understand that we are coming from quite different perspectives on this topic, however I have stated my bias while (even though your lean is listed) you have yet to discuss how that is effecting you view of the matter (which has been showing up persistently--and I have addressed some of these points already; although I will get back to you on the rest still).
Click to expand...

I don't fit things to conform to my political views. I have my political views because I take the world, and people, as they are. I believe in freedom because it's the demonstrable best deal for everyone, not to mention that I don't believe, as you do, that I know what's best for everyone, and I believe people should determine that for themselves. I despise what you are proposing because it always leads to mass graves and immense human misery. That's documented fact.
 
Last edited:
xMathFanx said:
The people doing the overwhelming bulk of the work should be quasi-proportionally related to the ones reaping the benefits (which is not at all our current model). In order to ensure this, we would still operate under a "Market" system, but simply constrain the Market by switching off of a "preference based" value to a "utility based" value structure. Practically, this would be enforced by regulatory incentives.

That is, this is not just "more to my liking", but rather "more consistent to the necessities of what our current society is based upon (Science & Tech, ect. ect.) on an objective basis
Click to expand...

People aren't objective. We don't make decisions on an objective basis, and we don't generally consider the future beyond a generation or two.

We are a seething mass of conflicting drives and emotions, and we aren't nearly so far out of the cave as we'd like to think.

Find a fix for that, and then we can make the world exactly like Star Trek.
 
Yes_Minister said:
If you say so, is the growing income gap a myth as well?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-21/why-wages-aren-t-growing

U.S. inequality keeps getting uglier - Dec. 22, 2016
Click to expand...

I never said the growing income gap was a myth so I didn't even look at your stupid links. Please pay attention. I said the growing income gap is totally irrelevant. So what if the rich get richer at a faster rate than the poor? The poor have been better off since the caveman days. Income inequality is merely another form of jealousy by those that are jealous of those who have more. The left mistakenly believes that growing income inequality means the poor are getting poorer while the rich get richer. That is total and complete nonsense and fabrication. As I said, the poor have been getting better and better ever since caveman days. What does it matter that someone else gets richer at a faster pace?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom