I been reading YouTube comments and many of them were saying how the United States is less equal than other countries in the world. This is true. But I do not see what this has to do with anything. The people who generally make this kind of argument identify themselves as socialists and say that under socialism people are more equal. But what these people never do is explain why equality is virtuous.
Let us suppose that there is nothing in equality which makes it virtuous. And there is nothing in inequality that makes it evil. Then determining which countries are better or worse by looking at equality and inequality rates is a meaningless task, it does not tell us anything valuable.
I agree with these people that the United States has high inequality rates. I would also argue that a hundred years ago when some people (who are demonized as the "robber-barons" today) were extraordinary wealthy there was way more inequality back then then there is today. I do think that the United States has been among the top countries in its inequality. But my question is so what?
Equality is a funny word. When you say "I stand for equality", it sounds great and wonderful. And when you say, "the United States has less equality than European countries", it sounds like a negative trait of the United States. I do not know what it is. There is just something about the word which make it sounds automatically virtuous.
But I never hear arguments why equality is a virtue. It is just a given to us. Something I must accept as good and anything which goes against equality must automatically be evil. My question is very simple. Why is equality a virtue?
What really seems to be important is not equality or inequality within a country but the standard of living within this country. The question should not be "is there a high degree of equality?", rather it should be, "what are the living standards of the citizens?".
Think back 150,000 years ago when life was brutish and short, miserable and poor. The hunter-gatherer had a terrible life. His standard of living was far worse than any other place in the world today. But all the hunter-gathers were equal! From all over the world. There was no one great industrial hunter-gatherer. They were all poor. All equally poor.
Can one possibly say that it is better to live as a hunter-gatherer, with close to perfect equality, than it is to live as an average US citizen with astronomical inequality? The case is clear. Equality is not relevant in this discussion at all. What matters is the standard of living. The living standard in the US is better than in the savanna, and that is all what matters in determining which country is better to live in.
Consider a more relevant example today. Suppose that the United States the average rich income is 500,000 a year and the average poor income is 30,000 a year (I just made these numbers up for the sake of illustration, I may be totally off here). Let us also suppose that in France the average rich income is 35,000 a year and the average poor income is 10,000 a year. Certainly, France is more equal than the United States. But why does this matter. Just look at the standard of living. Is it not clear that in the United States the poor have it almost as well off as the rich in France? Then does it not follow that that United States is preferable to France in this example?
It does not matter if the rich keep on getting richer if the poor are getting richer also. Even if the rich are getting richer at a faster rate than the poor (which must happen for basic mathematical reasons) it does not matter if the standard of living of the poor continues to increase as well.
Let us return back to the US France example above. In France the citizens are much more equal, but they are equally poor when compared to the United States. Which is better? A higher standard of living with high inequality, or people being equal but equally poor?
Furthermore, it is impossible to have an equal society if its members are not prevented from success and failure. People are not actually equal. People look different, have different ideas, have different beliefs, have different desires, and have different talents. There is no way to have a free society where people can interact with one another how they please, where they can buy and sell as they please, and express their talents as they please, and at the same time have equality. Some people are much smarter. Some people are much more talented. Some people are much more artistic. Some people are much more beautiful. Inequality all around us. And there are other people, the entrepreneurs, who have their own skills. Being able to run a business and make lots of money is a skill like anything else. Some people are very skillful at doing this. In a free society these people would be much more successful than other people who do not have their skills. And henceforth these entrepreneurs would be much more wealthier than other people around them. This is why inequality must always exist in a capitalist economy, to a large degree in fact.
The only way to negate this inequality is by negating equal of rights (and equality before the law). The kind of equality that I truly care about is equality of rights, not equality of results. What the advocates of equality want is equality of results. But under a system that fixes an amount the skillful entrepreneur can make is treating the entrepreneur differently from how it treats a common worker. The entrepreneur is legally punished for being too good for everybody. While everyone else goes unpunished. This is inequality of rights. The rights of the entrepreneur are treated differently from the rights of everyone else. The only way to attain equality of results is by sacrificing equality of rights. So not only do I see the measure of equality as meaningless I see it as vile. Because such a measure implies the negation of equality of rights, which is actually important.
So the whole equality argument does not get to me. I see it as a meaningless measure. It is a good tactic for politicians though. Just talk about equality and appeal to the passions of the people. That certainly has a lot of support and votes behind it. But from what I see the equality issue is unimportant, in fact even undesirable for it negates the equality of rights.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
As a nihilist, can you please explain what good means? Can you please define a virtue? Since everything is meaningless whats the difference?
ReplyDeleteI would like to know the answer to above post also.
ReplyDeletePlease define what is good and Evil? How can you understand what is good, when you believe that the universe was a random accident.
Do not steal the answer from Theistic worldview. I dare you to come up with something original.
"As a nihilist, can you please explain what good means? Can you please define a virtue? Since everything is meaningless whats the difference?":
ReplyDeleteBasically it just means to simply be nice with other people (those who are worthy that respect), and that is essentially it. You can read more here ( http://skepticbutjewish.blogspot.com/2010/02/morality.html ).
"Do not steal the answer from Theistic worldview. I dare you to come up with something original.":
The theistic worldview has no answer. There are no morals in Judaism. It is just pure complete obedience to God. The Torah is not a book of morals. It is a book of obedience to God. The theists do not have an answer, they just substitute "morality" for "obedience".
"Basically it just means to simply be nice with other people"
ReplyDeleteWHY? survival of the fittest. Remember.
"The theistic worldview has no answer"
First of all, it is the only worldview which has all the answers. Second i am not Jewish, i am protestant and i am here to get some answers from a Bisexual Jew atheist's POV.
"WHY? survival of the fittest. Remember.":
ReplyDeleteEvolution is not a statement of morality. It is a description of how the world works. Very few people think of evolution as moral.
"First of all, it is the only worldview which has all the answers.":
Obviously because religion is arrogant. It has all the answers.
"Second i am not Jewish, i am protestant and i am here to get some answers from a Bisexual Jew atheist's POV.":
Protestants are even dumber than religious Jews.
I agree with you that equality is not good simpliciter. However, we can't so easily dismiss the current inequality when it in fact results from government policy, not from the free market.
ReplyDelete"I agree with you that equality is not good simpliciter. However, we can't so easily dismiss the current inequality when it in fact results from government policy, not from the free market.":
ReplyDeleteI do agree that inequality is created by government intervention. But that actually does not bother me so much, because I think that in absense of government interfering with the economy the inequality would still be there. I am not exactly sure what the inequality rates would be in a free market economy as compared to the current economy. But it may in fact be that in a free market economy the inequality would be even greater.
I object to you writing a post entitled equality is not a virtue when in your nihilistic universe there is no such thing as virtue and vice. There is simply preference. Why not rewrite the post to say simply "I prefer a darwinian process where everybody gets to do whatever they like to achieve their goals (with your blanket caveat as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else). Then you could dispense with all of the rest of the article, which only makes sense in a non-nihilistic framework.
ReplyDelete"I object to you writing a post entitled equality is not a virtue when in your nihilistic universe there is no such thing as virtue and vice.":
ReplyDeleteThere is such thing as virtue and vice. The only difference between me and you is that I have the courage to say that the concept of virtue and vice is a human concept, it cannot be deduced to or arrived at from any objective point of view.
"I prefer a darwinian process where everybody gets to do whatever they like to achieve their goals.":
Obviously a reference for social Darwinism. But that demonization is not going to work on me I addressed this issue back here ( http://skepticbutjewish.blogspot.com/2010/06/social-darwinism-and-capitalism.html ).
It may be that there's more inequality on the free market, but not if our understanding of economics is correct :-) In any case, so long as we're speculating, maybe all the poor people today would be rich, and all the rich people would be poor. The point is you can't sit and praise rich people for getting rich when they're simply handed stolen money.
ReplyDeleteSocietal equality is always a virtue. Inequality breeds envy, resentment and crime. It can also bring progress, but at what cost? Are we really happier than a hunter-gatherer society that knows nothing else? We're certainly not doing the environment any favours. We could do a lot worse than introduce balance.
ReplyDelete"Societal equality is always a virtue.":
ReplyDeleteWhat is better a higher standard of living with inequality or a low standard of living with equality?
Between these two I am sure you would agree that higher living standards are better. Then do you not agree that if you want to make the world a better place that higher living standards are the way to go?
"Inequality breeds envy, resentment and crime.":
Inequality does lead to envy. But is envy always a bad thing? Envy is what drives the economy. Wanting more for yourself is what drives the economy. Envy can be a bad thing, but envy is the reason why so many things are being done for the sake of greater profits.
Think about it this way (if that previous way is too pessimistic). If people are made all equal then what incentive would they have to rise above themselves? Some individuals are great. Why would these uber-men seek to rise about every else if they know it is futile, for that would lead to inequality. If you have great individuals who pursue greater ideas then you will have inequality from that. If you say that people must be kept equal then why would these great men want to greatness if they are restrained from breaking equality?
So does it not follow then that equality is actually not a virtue in this instance? You said it is always a virtue. I just gave you an example of when it is not.
Now you mention that inequality leads to crime. This is just not true. Crime is mostly the result of poor people seeking things for themselves. If you cut the number of poor people then you will most likely cut the crime. If you are still not convinced think back to the hunter-gatherer days of men. Was there a lot of crime back then? Of course, there were tribe wars, wars between members, it was a terrible time to live. But everyone was equally poor. While today it is more peaceful to live than it was 20,000 years ago. Though there is much more inequality today than 20,000 years ago. Because crime often results from people with low living standards, not inequality.
"What is better a higher standard of living with inequality or a low standard of living with equality?"
ReplyDeleteIt depends on what you use to measure the standard of living. I consider the answer to your question to be the happier of the two societies.
Inequality breeds envy - at least we're agreed there. Don't kid yourself - envy is not a good thing. Look, it's even one of the ten commandments - "You shall not covet...." - that's just an example, I'm not religious. Envy and personal greed should not be the driving factor of the economy. Your simplification is not incorrect, but it's a brutal assessment of our capitalist system. Too many of us are overlooking the good of the many for the sake of "greater profits" for the few and losing our humanity.
Whom, except great individuals, can comment on the incentives that lead them to greatness? We can only speculate. Were Da Vinci, Edison, Newton, the Wright brothers all motivated by envy or profit? Perhaps education and simple curiosity were more likely. As long as people are educated and stimulated, there will always be innovation. We don't need envy and greed to spur as on. How bloody primitive.
And your final paragraph is a contradiction in itself. You say that I'm wrong, then straight away blame crime on poor people. How do we cut the number of poor people if we have inequality?! Let me guess.... more guns?
Not to mention the absurdity of attempting insight on ancient societies. How on earth do you know that there was more crime 20,000 years ago? Again, we can only postulate.
"It depends on what you use to measure the standard of living.":
ReplyDeleteIt just means who got more money and thus able to afford more products or services for themselves.
"I consider the answer to your question to be the happier of the two societies.":
I do not care about happiness, but maybe some other people do. So do you not think that the best way for those people, who want more happiness, is to have a higher standard of living? If you got more then it is easier to live. And as a result you have more time to put your time into the things you really love to do. Hence, happiness. If your entire life goal is to get as much happiness as possible then you need to move into a higher standard of living too.
Now this is off topic but just in case you are interested to know why I do not care about attaining as much happiness as possible it is because it is counter-productive. Think about it. If people were 100% happy all the time. What would the primitive man ever accomplish? Would cavemen go out of their way to discover the uses of fire to make themselves happier? No way. They are already happy. Why should they? Happy people do not achieve much. It is the dreaful, the lonely, and the depressed individuals who are more driven for greater success, perhaps so that they can become happier as a result. I stand for the pursuit of happiness. That is a driving innovation. But not for happiness itself.
"Don't kid yourself - envy is not a good thing.":
Why is it not a good thing? I gave an argument above to a defense of greed. In which ways it is productive and useful. And you do not refute that position, you just say "it is not a good thing". Well, do you realize that the computer you are using now was the result of greed? Do you realize that the clothes you are wearing now was the result of greed? Do you realize that the internet service prodiver was the result of greed? Do you realize that the food that you ate today was the result of greed? How can you then say that greed is not a good thing? You can say that sometimes greed is not a good thing, but you cannot entirely dismiss it especially when almost everything you ever attain in your life is a direct result from it.
"Look, it's even one of the ten commandments.":
First of all, I do not care about the ten commandments. They are written by primitive animal scarificing men from the bronze-age who believed in superstitution and who thought that genocide was virtuous if God told them too.
Second of all, the tenth commandment of not being greedy only applies to excessive greed. In other words, if my neighborhood has a horse and I say to myself I want another horse too, that is alright. But if I say to myself that I want his horse for myself then that is not alright. Even the primitive Old Testament recognized a place of greed in the world.
"Envy and personal greed should not be the driving factor of the economy.":
ReplyDeleteWhy not? I gave you a list of things about that were created out of greed and the pursuit of greater profits. Also can you tell me what should be the driving factor of the economy? People just deciding to be benevolent to one another? That is how you are planning for an amazing complex structure of people to interact with one another?
Profits allow enterprenuers to know exactly what needs to be done. The greater the demand the greater the profits at stake. Enterpreneurs who want the greatest of profits will move into the area of the economy that results in their greatest profits. While at the same time benefitted all the people. The pricing system of the market settles the problems in the complexity of allocation of resources itself, how is benevolence going to address this problem?
"Too many of us are overlooking the good of the many for the sake of greater profits for the few and losing our humanity.":
The search for greater profits is one of the reasons what has brought forth to this world great inventions.
"Whom, except great individuals, can comment on the incentives that lead them to greatness? We can only speculate. Were Da Vinci, Edison, Newton, the Wright brothers all motivated by envy or profit? ":
Are you part of the Zeitgeist movement? This is the third time already I hear the Wright brothers mentions. Do you Zeitgeisters have like a collection of talking points you are going to say and just say them. How many more times are you going to mention the Wright brothers already?
Anyway, these people were motivated by self-interest. Not in money but in knowledge. These people were greater than those around them, hence inequality, and they were not stopped from searching for what they wanted. They were all motivated by their own self-interests to know more.
But what about the enterpreneurs and the capitalists? Those people are incredibly important also. You cannot possibly deny that these people do not benefit the world. What about the drug companies that seek greater profits. Where would life saving drugs be if it was not for the great rewards for them doing so? You can say that some benevolent people would contribute. That is true. But a huge number of drugs that we have today are the direct result of companies wanting profits. Hence, their desire for profits ends up saving lives. How can you say this is not noble?
"Perhaps education and simple curiosity were more likely. As long as people are educated and stimulated, there will always be innovation.":
ReplyDeleteThere will always be innovation but at what rate. You cannot possible claim that in a world for which no profits are giving for people for innovation that there will be just as much innovation as in a world where no profits are given at all. You must surly agree that if profits are avaliable there is a great incentive for people to innovate and discover? If you cut the profit motive away from that then you kill the incentive. Hence you cut back on innovation.
"We don't need envy and greed to spur as on.":
Why not? Explain this point. You have not defending this positive. Consider everything I told you already. Defend how you can run a world without greed.
"How bloody primitive.":
You do sound like a utopian. It seems that your final message is: we need to have a society where people do not act on greed. That is utopian because it rejects the nature of man in promise of a greater world. One of the things the Soviets claimed was that they will engineer the perfect man who will think about others than about himself. This has never happened. Nor will ever happen. People are motivated to want more things for themselves. And there is nothing wrong about that at all - as I was saying.
Besides do you not think that you are selfish also? Even the altruists are selfish. You want more happiness. That is something you want and something you want to achieve. People mostly always act on selfish desires. Even the people who preach non-greed are like so. How much money do you give to charity? Why not start donating your clothes to Africa? Why not cut your income by a big percentage and start giving to poor people? Why do you need to live so well? Clearly you are selfish too. And you cannot break out of this cycle. But like I said, there is nothing wrong with that.
"And your final paragraph is a contradiction in itself. You say that I'm wrong, then straight away blame crime on poor people. How do we cut the number of poor people if we have inequality?!":
Did you read my post above? If you did then how can you ask such a foolish question? I said that inequality does not mean poor. You can have two countries. One with high equality by poor people. One with high inequality but richer people. The richer one is preferrable to the poor one even though it has more inequality, and it will have lower crime.
"Not to mention the absurdity of attempting insight on ancient societies. How on earth do you know that there was more crime 20,000 years ago? Again, we can only postulate.":
Okay fine, the primitive cavemen lived a great life. He had no tribe warfare, he had no other members trying to kill him or steal what he had. He had a great and happy life filled with all the possessions that he wanted. And great equality, in fact, perfect equality. Fine you can reject this point. This was just an example, my main argument is summarized in all the others points I mentioned so you can reject this if you like.
You seem to think that money is the panacea for all our woes. It magically provides for us a higher standard of living and therefore increases our happiness.
ReplyDeleteI think many people would be a hell of a lot happier if they were less productive, but went without the big air conditioned house full of Ikea furniture and 400 thread count sheets and spoilt children with plasma screens and Xbox consoles in every room - all of which are owned by the banks anyway (yes, including the chidren). Look at the overwhelming attitude among the working class: "I hate Mondays", "Damn, it's only Wednesday", "TGIF". We're all guilty of it. We spend our entire week working pointless jobs we hate just to spend the two days we get to recuperate and start the cycle all over again. Hey, we might spend the occasional weekend away or holiday overseas if we're lucky. But we always have to come back to that job we hate. What a good bunch of productive worker bees we are. And because the TV tells us that another food processor or t-shirt or side-table will make us happy, then who are we to argue? We're living longer and we have all the modern conveniences we're told we need. Maybe when we are 65 and we've done our part for society, we can finally have 10 years of self- or government-funded retirement in which to potter around and wait to die, hoping that our children and grandchildren, who we ignored most of their lives so we could be more productive, will come and visit as often as they can. Great - what a life we all live!
But, who am I to judge? I was raised in this environment and I'm a part of it. I have the air-conditioned house, the kitchen appliances, the car, and the meaningless job to pay for it all. I believe I have a lot of good ideas but I've been stymied by the endless grind of working to pay bills and mortgages and loans for cars and appliances I don't need and really haven't made me any happier than I was as a penniless student. I wasn't consciously motivated by greed, I was motivated by fear. I was always told that if I don't work hard at school then I'll never be able to get a job and make money and instead end up broke and alone. What a way to indoctrinate the younger generations! Instead, we should be instilling children with a sense of curiosity, nurturing and respect, which will organically lead to innovation and altruism. I don't think this will all magically happen overnight and in a wave of group love and hands-across-the-world.
But.... innovation through envy, greed and fear.... What a brilliant solution for our species. I honestly despair for us when intelligent people such as yourself can't see the bone-headed path we're travelling.
"You seem to think that money is the panacea for all our woes. It magically provides for us a higher standard of living and therefore increases our happiness.":
ReplyDeleteI said that a higher standard of living means people would be able to live better lives, and so they will generally be happier since they have easier access to what they want. That is all I said. You conclude that saying this is to imply money is the solution to any problem. How? From whence do you get that out of?
"I think many people would be a hell of a lot happier if they were less productive.":
There is an obvious question to ask here that would imply what you are saying is wrong. If it was really true that the current life people live is more depressing than a more 'humble' life then why do people not embrace the more humble one if it brings more happiness?
"all of which are owned by the banks anyway (yes, including the chidren).":
Including the central bank. It buys up your children's future through debt. But how exactly is this applicable to me? If you read my posts it should be clear that I do not support any kind of central bank. You probably never seen those posts so you are not familar with my position with regard to this.
"We spend our entire week working pointless jobs we hate just to spend the two days we get to recuperate and start the cycle all over again. Hey, we might spend the occasional weekend away or holiday overseas if we're lucky. But we always have to come back to that job we hate. What a good bunch of productive worker bees we are.":
You want me to say that life is meaningless and that it sucks? Of course it sucks. And our lives are for the most part entirely pathetic.
But unlike people such as yourself I do not preach utopian messages of salvation. I never claim that my ideas would make a world a good place. I believe that the world will always suck, at least for a long long time. I do not give people this false message of hope. However, at the same time I do think that my ideas will make people better. Not well off, but better that what is. Indeed, if you compare how people lived hundreds of years ago to how they live today it has improved. Certainly our pathetic existence which we call life sucks and is a void, but it has improved relative to the past. The reason why messages of Marxism or whatever have been so popular among people is precisely because of their false promises of hopes. The people want to believe that a world in where they do not have to work much can be achieved. But there is a fundamental problem that prevents that from happening. Economics. If people are consuming more than producing then you are screwed. And hence people must produce more than they actually consume, which makes work necessary. It is a sad state of affairs but there is no current way out of it, at least not for a long long time. However, again, in comparison to the best the amount has diminished because of all the abundance of capital that is now avaliable.
"I was raised in this environment and I'm a part of it. I have the air-conditioned house, the kitchen appliances, the car, and the meaningless job to pay for it all.":
If you want to be disgusted with yourself, with your own desires, and what you have, then so be it. I will not stop you. If you want to have the mentality of the weak, the slavish-mentality, then so be it. I preach a different way of looking. For the strong and powerful. We can make ourselves the masters of our own lives. And we should work to make ourselves better off. Now you would say that this makes us bad people? But why? If we are strong, and at the same time we are good people onto others, what case can you then have against the strong-minded people?
"I believe I have a lot of good ideas but I've been stymied by the endless grind of working to pay bills and mortgages and loans for cars and appliances I don't need and really haven't made me any happier than I was as a penniless student.":
ReplyDeleteYou have radical ideas, not good idea. Your ideas suck. But at least you are not afraid to try radical ideas. I got no problem with radical ideas. My ideas are rather radical, if you took time to read through my ideas that are written on this site. But you can at least try to make those ideas that you have compatible with basic economics.
"I was always told that if I don't work hard at school then I'll never be able to get a job and make money and instead end up broke and alone. What a way to indoctrinate the younger generations!":
What is called 'education' is really a form of 'indoctrination'. That kills the creativity of children and murders their own individuality. I actually have some different views with regard to proper child education that I was meaning to post on this site for quite some time.
"But.... innovation through envy, greed and fear.... What a brilliant solution for our species.":
You have done nothing whatsoever to refute the points that I mentioned. I said that the profit motive drives innovation. If people are able to prosper greatly they have a greater of an incentive to become greater. That is what I said. You have ignored this point entirely. And I futher said that if you destroy the ability of people to become great and to prosper you will severly damage a powerful driving force behind innovation.
"I honestly despair for us when intelligent people such as yourself can't see the bone-headed path we're travelling.":
I have a different idea. A different explanation to the cause of a lot of problems in the world. Well the primary reason for why there are problems in the world is because this world is a pretty terrible place. And there was never really a perfect state when it was fine. From the very beginning everything was messed up already. But I do have an idea to what causes a lot of problems in the world.
It is the idea that violence is the way to solve social problems. In other words, politics. The is the summary of politics. Using violence as a means to solve problems. Violence against one group of people by another group of people. We all agree, I hope so, that violence is not a way to deal with our personal day to day lives. I am sure we would say it is terrible wrong to do, and that it is also extreme counter-productive. It does much more harm than good. But somehow something very strange happens. Why is it that when we take the basic notion of "violence is not a way to deal with social problems" and apply it to a national level does it all of the sudden become virtuous? Politics between two individuals is evil and wrong. But politics between countries is great and virtuous. That is the great lie and delusion that sweeps through most of the world. That is what you need to be fighting against. Not money.
Firstly, I like to make a point that I posted a continuation of my last response, but within minutes of posting, it had disappeared. This happened twice. Let me try again today - it should be read directly after my last post...
ReplyDeleteAs for the Zeitgeist movement, I don't blindly follow any organisation without doing my research. That said, I've read nothing to conclude that they are anything but a group of people who are raising awareness of the current economic system and its failings. Nor am I a utopian, but the Venus Project is an amazing ideal to work towards. I'm under no illusion that this can be implemented in the short term, but it shows what could be possible if we decide to re-prioritize our pursuits.
Since you ask, here is what I'm personally doing right now to be a better person - and it's certainly not motivated by personal greed or envy:
- Decreasing my footprint. Installing water tanks, solar panels, using grey water to keep the garden growing. Keeping the air conditioner off.
- Buying food produce from local suppliers and privately owned vendors, not big business. This costs more, but redistributes wealth among the primary producers. Also ensuring the foods I buy are either not pre-packaged or have minimal packaging.
- Recycling where possible. Responsible disposal of materials from food packaging. Reuse of building materials for home improvements.
- Capping my client base (I'm self-employed) and consulting rates in the face of inflation. I don't make six figures per annum and I've decided that I don't need it. I still owe a lot of money, but as long as I can feed myself, keep healthy and pay off my debts, then I don't need more money. My girlfriend is also quitting her job in advertising in the city to work at a local educational institution.
- Working less in my pointless job as a result of the above point. Giving myself more free time to pursue more important interests, and enjoying life when I can.
- Educating myself and engaging in debates with others to aid this process. Recording ideas and dreams as they come instead of ignoring them as "unproductive".
- Volunteering at a local environmental organisation and a sustainability organisation.
These actions certainly aren't swelling me with a feeling of self-satisfaction because I'm surrounded by both the truly dedicated, who are returning every cent they earn to improving the system; and the "sheeple", who continue to blindly support this rubbish system. I'm doing nowhere near the amount of the true altruists, but I'm working on it. I'm still figuring out how to survive in this society and where best to focus my energies. Giving food and clothing to the poor is like bashing one's head against a wall. For every person helped, another 2 or 3 or 10 will pop up. They are a product of our system, not an unfortunate accident.
How anybody can suggest that the level of inequality we have now is acceptable is beyond my comprehension. Your comparison of rich countries with a large internal disparity to poor countries with a small internal disparity might be a great argument if they were mutually exclusive. But our rich countries are directly responsible for the plight of most of the poor countries through exploitation of resources. Those societies are an extension of our own opulence. They don't have much, and nor do others around them, but they have television. And through advertising and film, television tells them they are missing out. Television isn't the only reason of course, but free trade and the global economy has tragic repercussions.
"I said that a higher standard of living means people would be able to live better lives, and so they will generally be happier since they have easier access to what they want. That is all I said. You conclude that saying this is to imply money is the solution to any problem. How?"
ReplyDeleteOK, I do agree with the sentiment that those with more money are happier than those without due to their ability to increase their standard of living by choice. The methods by which a wealthy society accumulates their wealth, by exploiting the poor, is the problem. The distribution of wealth is the problem. Money as an entity in and of itself is the problem. It's no longer just a tool of trade.
"If it was really true that the current life people live is more depressing than a more 'humble' life then why do people not embrace the more humble one if it brings more happiness?"
Where I live, I see and hear of many people quitting their jobs and moving to rural areas for a seachange or greenchange. Their houses are smaller, their incomes are lower and their standard of living (as a measure of assets, modern conveniences, access to health services) is lower. But they are overwhelmingly happier. They will argue their standard of living is higher than before, even though the traditional methods would measure it lower.
However, I think we are reaching some common ground. You agree that the current situation is untenable due to the economic system we have. Good. But I'm not riddled with self-disgust (my self-inclusion with the greedy elite was a lead-in to my next post that was deleted) nor am I living life in despair, convinced that the reason for our problems is that "the world is a pretty terrible place". This isn't about preaching messages of false hope and promising utopia, it's about constant evolution of our society. Identifying problems and righting wrongs little by little, or if that's not enough, then by a paradigm shift created by increasing public consciousness. Increasing awareness of the true world outside our bubble of greed, envy and fear.
Do you have any idea why a particular post of mine is being deleted? I have successfully posted it 3 times, but within a few minutes it disappears from the thread. It outlines my personal motivations and covers another of your points.
ReplyDeleteYour posts disappear because of the automatic anti-spam system that deletes them. I found your post and restored it.
ReplyDelete"That said, I've read nothing to conclude that they are anything but a group of people who are raising awareness of the current economic system and its failings.":
If you read my response to the Zeitgeist movement you will realize that my entire issue with them is their economics. There are correct on some stuff. But they should drop the whole conspiracy stuff, it is just not necessary. Why invent a complicated explanation if an easy one would do. Further, they propose an economic system that is exactly like Marxism. They just call it a "resource-based economy" (as if all other economic ideas are not resource based).
"Venus project is an amazing ideal to work towards.":
And I wish I had a larger penis. It does not convince me, what about the calculation problem, what about the problem of knowledge? In a free market of interchanging people this information is solved itself, but how would a central planner possibly deal with this complexity?
"Since you ask, here is what I'm personally doing right now to be a better person - and it's certainly not motivated by personal greed or envy.":
I find it funny that you do those things. Whether or not being concerned with what you do is good or not is irrelevant right now. But all of these things are selfish. Yes, they are. Not for monetary value but for making yourself feel better. You have guilt if you do not do these things. So you do them because it makes you feel better. You are doing something which is making you happier. And in that regard you are being selfish.
Do you give out money to poor people? Do you send money to Africa or South America? In what way do you help other people? When there are natural disasters do you donate money so that money can be used for other people? If you are instead concerned about environment issues over other people then that is not exactly being altruistic, is it? It is selfish. Not for monetary value, but for happiness, and to overcome a sense of guilt that you feel when you do not do this.
"Giving food and clothing to the poor is like bashing one's head against a wall. For every person helped, another 2 or 3 or 10 will pop up. They are a product of our system, not an unfortunate accident.":
What about giving money to people in poor countries? You give them money, they become better off. Or invest your money in small business that can now open up. Why do you talk about altruism if you do not practice it yourself?
"How anybody can suggest that the level of inequality we have now is acceptable is beyond my comprehension. Your comparison of rich countries with a large internal disparity to poor countries with a small internal disparity might be a great argument if they were mutually exclusive. But our rich countries are directly responsible for the plight of most of the poor countries through exploitation of resources. Those societies are an extension of our own opulence. They don't have much, and nor do others around them, but they have television.":
This is the error of thinking of trade as a zero sum game. There are two means to wealth. The political means and the economic means. The political means is a violent transfer of property to someone else. This is a situation when one loses and one gains. But the economic means to wealth benefits both. For one to gain something the other must be willing to give it for a benefit in return. There are a lot of serious problems in poor countries, one of which is the political means of control. Whenever free trade has existed prosperity has resulted. Do not confuse the political means and the economic means.
"The methods by which a wealthy society accumulates their wealth, by exploiting the poor, is the problem. The distribution of wealth is the problem.":
ReplyDeleteThe poor do get exploited. Usually the result of politics. In a market economy the situation is different. Indeed, if the poor are continually being exploited, then why are the poor richer now than when they were in the past. This is not very consistent.
"The distribution of wealth is the problem. Money as an entity in and of itself is the problem. It's no longer just a tool of trade.":
Why? Explain. You are repeating this over and over without defending this point. I already explained why inequality of wealth is not a problem. And why money is necessary and good. But you still keep on repeating the same old Marxist points that I heard too many times in my life already.
"However, I think we are reaching some common ground. You agree that the current situation is untenable due to the economic system we have.":
The economic system that in place now is really a political system. And it should crumble eventually, as a ponzi scheme cannot sustain itself indefinitely for basic mathematical reasons.
And yes I do believe that something else needs to happen. Something very radical. Something very different than what is now. And I stand by that. If you take your time to read my other posts perhaps you will get a better idea of what I stand for. But I am not anti-capitalism, I strongly stand for laissez-faire capitalism.
"Identifying problems and righting wrongs little by little, or if that's not enough, then by a paradigm shift created by increasing public consciousness.":
The only way that I know of making the world a better place is through education in virtue and philosophy, and the spread of idea. It is a slow and painful process, sometimes deadly, but this is the only way to go. Not by voting, or running in office, or trusting any politicians who promise you hope and a perfected world.
I understand that the economic system proposed by the Zeitgeist movement is radical and completely unproven. However, all other systems put into practice have been proven to fail. Not necessarily because the models were flawed, but mainly due to corruption. This could happen with any system, but some are more prone than others - especially when greed is rewarded. Capitalism has proven to be the most progressive and the most destructive system ever conceived.
ReplyDeleteThe Venus Project poses solutions as to how a future society could function. Of course there are questions. I don't think anyone is delusional enough to think it can be achieved in its entirety today. It's becoming clear though that one of the biggest boundaries are people with a very cynical view of humanity, who believe that a system that doesn't reward greed, but does provide global abundance for our needs, will fail.
Speaking of skepticism, you dismiss as selfish my motivation for improving my own sustainability. It isn't selfish - it's bloody mandatory! Our current consumption can't continue unabated. Isn't maintaining the status quo even more selfish?
Perhaps my actions may influence others in my immediate circle to change their unsustainable actions. Maybe they won't. Maybe I was influenced by some of the documentaries and books I've read to change my actions - and they are the ones changing the world. I honestly don't care who does it, or how it's done - as long as it's not ignored.
It's not selfish and doesn't make me happier. In fact, it's a pain in the ass most of the time. I could do all my shopping at single superstore, throw all my rubbish in the one bin, use as much water and power as a like, change my clients a higher rate, work a few more hours to get more money, watch more TV, play more video games, shit in the ocean and kick the local wildlife. But I don't do all that because I actually give a shit. I don't care about feelings of self satisfaction or guilt - I don't experience either. I don't give to the poor because it won't make a difference in the grand scheme of things. I might change a life or two, but by the time my money goes through all the administrative organisations, maybe a quarter of it will be seen by the people who need it. But we are all affected by our ecosystem so I will support anybody tasked to protect it.
Do you honestly think free trade always benefits both parties? What about IMF loans to poor countries? Loans - not donations - which need to be paid back with interest. Repayments only afforded via contracts with corporations to sell them resources at a favourable rate - resources grown or mined by the local population since it's so cheap. If these countries fall behind in the repayments, then land and infrastructure (the same infrastructure paid for with the IMF loans) is then sold off to these corporations for a fraction of the initial cost. They are then left with no resources, no infrastructure, no money, and a hell of a lot of debt. I agree with you in one regard - it's certainly not a zero sum game.
ReplyDelete"I understand that the economic system proposed by the Zeitgeist movement is radical and completely unproven.":
ReplyDeleteThat is not the problem I have with it. A lot of important ideas in history have been very radical and never proved empirically. It is okay that it is proposing something new. The problem is not that it is radical, the problem is that all rationality that I have reveal it to be foolish - because it rejects basic economics.
"However, all other systems put into practice have been proven to fail.":
Everything fails. I do not consider myself to be part of any political party (more of an anti-political party), the best term that I have to describe what I think it "political nihilism", and you can read more about it here ( http://skepticbutjewish.blogspot.com/2011/01/political-nihilism.html ). However, even though in any kind of a system there will be big problems, and so they are doomed to fail, we can still talk about the efficiency of one system in comparison to another. So even though I do acknowledge that capitalism fails, I consider it to be far more efficient than anything (all else fails even more).
"Capitalism has proven to be the most progressive and the most destructive system ever conceived.":
Destruction in what way? Count the number of people killed by states in the 20th century. Now how many of those murders were done by capitalism? It were done by the anti-capitalists. From whence to you say that capitalism is the most descructive?
"I don't think anyone is delusional enough to think it can be achieved in its entirety today.":
What about its current followers? They sure seem to believe in that.
"It's becoming clear though that one of the biggest boundaries are people with a very cynical view of humanity, who believe that a system that doesn't reward greed, but does provide global abundance for our needs, will fail.":
Milton Friedman had a very beautiful response to a question that was asked by him by Phil Donahue. Phil objected to the ideas of Friedman in an interview by saying that capitalism is a system based all around greed. Friedman responded, "can you name a system that does not run on greed?". I ask you the same question. Can you name a system that does not run on greed? You think the Soviet Union did not run on greed? Of course it did. You think the people in power in USSR were not greedy? You think that socialist countries do not run on greed? Of course they do. You think that people in a socialist worker force are not greedy? Of course they are, they want to get as much as possible for as little as possible. Greed is invariant under any system. The difference between capitalists and others is that the capitalists are honest enough to admit that greed is part of their system. Other kinds of people create a false world in which greed has no part at all. Greed will always prevail among men, just like death and suffering. Though this should not taken to be depressing. Because as I was trying to suggest that greed is not always bad. Sure sometimes it has a bad side to it, but it also produces some amazing things by motivating enterprenuers. There is a good side to greed as well. So it is not as depressing as I seem to make it.
"I could do all my shopping at single superstore, throw all my rubbish in the one bin, use as much water and power as a like, change my clients a higher rate, work a few more hours to get more money, watch more TV, play more video games, shit in the ocean and kick the local wildlife.":
ReplyDeleteWhat stops you from doing those things? You do not want to feel guilty of doing that. You know that when you do not do that you are a better person. Hence you feel happier as a result. There are religious people who practice ascetism and self-denial because it makes them feel happier, because they are too weak that they need to be disgusted with themselves. But it is all selfish in the end. You also mentioned you have a girlfriend. But love is itself a selfish act. She satisfies you and you satisfy her. If you are so against selfishness then why not break up with her?
"I don't give to the poor because it won't make a difference in the grand scheme of things.":
I find it very funny. You are the guy preaching against greed and how terrible it is. I am someone who is preaching that greed is unavoidable and that it is not so bad as you make it. But you are the one who never gets any money to charity at all, while I am someone who do. Why is this? It reminds me of gay Republicans who rile against gay marriage and eventually get caught having gay buttsex.
It is also funny and something which I cannot understand, why I am the greedy one. All I am saying is that I want to keep my own money and give it to those that I see fit. That is all. Is it so selfish to want your own money? But what about the so-called altruists who want other people's money for themselves. What about the others who are recipients of welfare and complain about the greedy people? These welfare recipients are the ones demanding the money of others. The capitalists do not demand anyone's money but their own.
Let me ask you a question. Do you support welfare programs for the poor? They are less efficient (much less efficient) than average charities. Now you are against giving money to charities as you claim that it gets spend on the administrative cost, and that it does not achieve anything. If this is so, then it would be consistent for you to be strongly against welfare programs. They have higher administrative costs and as you said they are all for nothing. But I doubt that you are anti-welfare, because that would be "greedy" (even though you never give any of your own money to charity voluntarily). Why?
If you preach altruism why do you not help others? From all I get is that you help yourself with your eco-friendly lifestyle. Which as I said, is selfish.
"Do you honestly think free trade always benefits both parties? What about IMF loans to poor countries? Loans - not donations - which need to be paid back with interest.":
ReplyDeleteI do not know anything about the IMF.
But I can comment on loans.
Free trade does not always benefit two parties. Instead, the two parties believe they would be better off if they trade. Indeed, if they did not think they would be better off, why would they trade? Sometimes people make miscalculations and then realize that they decision to trade was a bad one.
But this miscalculation problem is prevelant in any system. In any kind of a system that will ever exist there will have to be miscalculations problems that result in bad outcomes for some people. So the best thing one can do is allow people to choose for themselves what they think will make them the best. Sometimes people make mistakes. But other people cannot decide for them - because if people cannot decide for themselves then al fortiorti they cannot decide for others.
So even though free trade can lead to bad outcomes to some people it is the most preferrable concept because in it people can decide for themselves what they believe is the best action for them. No other kind of a system has this feature.
Loans fall into the same idea. Loans enable poor people to use that money as capital. Once they make profits they can repay back their loans.
Why is it so wrong to give loans if the decision to take a loan was decided upon the person himself? The person picked that loan precisely because he believed he would be better off with it.
And yes, loans do help people. It enables them to start something. It is unfair to focus on the bad cases of loans and overlook the good cases of loans.
Perhaps you will say it is wrong for people to charge interest. Do you know where interest rates come from? Well you can read this if you are interested, it is my defense of the practice of usury: ( http://skepticbutjewish.blogspot.com/2010/08/defending-wicked-part-12-usury.html ). And there is an economic explanation to why they are higher than usual that has nothing to do with very little to do with the greed of the lender.
Let us consider the extreme situation when interest is illegal under loans. Do you know what the outcome would be? It will not be lenders giving out money to poor people with no interest. It will be no interest at all. There will simply be no interest. And these poor people will now suffer even more. So even though your intentions were good the outcomes were disasterous.
"Capitalism has proven to be the most progressive and the most destructive system ever conceived."
ReplyDelete"Destruction in what way?"
Simple: to our ecosystem. Population increase, unsustainable resource use and pollution are by-products of all systems, but capitalism is (by your assertion) the most efficient. It's devastatingly efficient at destruction because growth and profit are encouraged and rewarded at all costs.
I don’t entirely agree with your statement about all other existing systems rewarding greed – some only do because of corruption. Moral corruption is inherent in capitalism. Your opinion of moral values is a little warped. Everything seems to revolve around selfishness. Let me put this to you, if somebody irritates you, do you only hold back from killing them purely for selfish reasons? Because you would feel guilty if you did? Is selfishness truly the central tenet of the human moral code? Actually, perhaps it is, but in an educated, civilized society, it’s just not that black and white.
All I can say about our welfare/charity discussion is that if you support a system dependent on greed, where the poor continue to rely on handouts from the greedy, and you can’t see fault in that, then I’m not sure we could agree on much at all. However....
“The only way that I know of making the world a better place is through education in virtue and philosophy, and the spread of idea. It is a slow and painful process, sometimes deadly, but this is the only way to go. Not by voting, or running in office, or trusting any politicians who promise you hope and a perfected world.”
This is the smartest thing I’ve read from you so far. This is exactly what I’m trying to achieve. But this statement combined with your “strong support” of laissez-faire capitalism is another contradiction. Unregulated capitalism does not encourage education in virtue or philosophy – although you do consider greed to be a virtue, so I guess it’s a matter of definition.
"Simple: to our ecosystem. Population increase, unsustainable resource use and pollution are by-products of all systems, but capitalism is (by your assertion) the most efficient. It's devastatingly efficient at destruction because growth and profit are encouraged and rewarded at all costs.":
ReplyDeleteSo I guess capitalism is the worst and most evil system because it damages the ecosystem. All other systems which have often resulted in massive death and suffering of people around the world are not as bad because the ecosystem is a lot more important.
This is precisely why I hate environmentalists. It is their hatred of people in favor of the environment. Some environmentalists would rather have a clean environment while have some people dead in the outcome. And you just admitted that in an implicit manner when you call out capitalism for being the most evil system. The socialist experiments that killed people and started wars are not as "destructive" because of the holy precious environment.
But that is just one problem with what you just said. There is a different problem. Capitalism is the best way to deal with environmental problems. If you define property rights and respect other's property then pollution would a violation of someone else's rights. As long as property is respected the environment is reasonably protected against forms of pollution.
But other than that problem you have another one. Do you not seriously see that other systems more destructive to the environment? I am sure you would agree with me that the Soviet Union was not exactly pro-green, they had their terrible nuclear meltdown after all. And what about war? War is anti-green also. What about the anti-capitalist countries that started the wars? That is not an environmental problem?
Lastly, sometimes going against green is good. People talk about that recycling is always good. Well, let us consider the extreme case that it costs 1 million dollars to recycle one can. Do you still favor recycling in that instance? Of course you would not. The point is that it is not that recycling is good and land fills are bad, it is rather the cost and benefit of recycling versues not recycling. And the only way to figure out this calculation problem is through the use of markets. There is no other way. Which is why, again, capitalism is the best way to deal with these sorts of problems.
"I don’t entirely agree with your statement about all other existing systems rewarding greed – some only do because of corruption.":
ReplyDeleteDo not change my question. I asked you to name a system that does not run on greed. That is what I asked. I did not ask you for what rewards greed and what does not. I asked a very simply question. Name me a system that does not run on greed. I also asked you if whether or not people are not greedy in other systems.
As far as rewarding greed, that is a good thing. People will always be greedy and want more possessions in any kind of a system. But in capitalism can they be rewarded for their greed. This is a good thing because it puts an incentive for people to innovate. If you get rewarded for doing something good, then that is more preferrable than in a system in where you are not rewarded at all and have less desire to innovate.
"Moral corruption is inherent in capitalism.":
Moral corruption is inherent under everywhere. Name a system that does not have moral corruption.
"Is selfishness truly the central tenet of the human moral code?":
I do not use selfishness as some sort of moral code. I am just saying that greed inspires more innovation than no greed at all. It is in this manner that greed is good. That is all I am saying. A point which you have not addressed at all so far. You keep ignoring it.
"All I can say about our welfare/charity discussion is that if you support a system dependent on greed.":
I do not support any kind of welfare. I think that welfare needs to be entirely abolished.
That is not the question I asked you. I asked you a very simple question. I asked you, do you support welfare? Would you like to see welfare abolished? That is what I asked you. Do not change question stick to what I asked you. If you do then you have revealed yourself to be inconsistent as you do not support welfare.
"But this statement combined with your strong support of laissez-faire capitalism is another contradiction. Unregulated capitalism does not encourage education in virtue or philosophy – although you do consider greed to be a virtue, so I guess it’s a matter of definition.":
Part of educating in virtue and philosophy is to ask the question as to what is the most preferrable economic system. That is part of education. And economics is part of education. Discussing and defending capitalism for me is just part of the kind of education that I consider the world needs to know to improve it positively in a long awaited future.
Hatred of environmentalism is ridiculous. Why not be sustainable by choice instead of by necessity when resources inevitably start running out due to scarcity? The planet is self-regulating and it's much more brutal than we could ever be. We are currently acting like a plague of locusts - consuming every resource until they run low and we start dying en-masse.
ReplyDeleteCapitalism has proven to self regulate only when economic disaster strikes. Symptoms are always ignored because cures can be found. It's a very short-sighted system. We will never be able to rely on competing companies to foresee shortages before they occur without regulation from an independent body.
Capitalism works only if one assumes infinite growth, which is impossible. If the only thing at stake was economic rise and fall, then it wouldn't be so bad. But with the rise in global population comes the fall in Earth's resources. Arable land, timber, mineral deposits, oil, fish - none of these are infinite, and capitalism does not take preventative or preservative measures. Look at how the whaling industry died in the 19th century. Too much money is there to be made while the resources are available - damn the future.
Using the Chernobyl accident as an example of Soviet Union being non-green just highlights how far you are straying from your comfort zone. Not to mention your statement about anti-capitalist countries that started "all the wars". Regardless of political structure, wars are (almost) always fought over resources. How about Iraq? Started by the strongest capitalists to secure their supply of oil. Just like they had previously done by proxy with resources in South America.
Yes, war is a huge environmental problem - and such a damn waste.... bringing us to your comment about recycling. Which misses the point yet again by placing an arbitrary million dollar figure on a single steel can. The point of recycling isn't to make people feel good, it's intended to reuse already processed resources that would be otherwise destined for landfill. This in turn reduces the amount of useful land wasted on landfill sites due to volume of rubbish and pollution of surrounding groundwater. Recycling is actually economically beneficial in many instances.
"I asked you to name a system that does not run on greed. That is what I asked."
ReplyDeleteSocialism - as a political theory - does not run on greed. However, socialism that has been practised has been corrupted by greed. You aren't just missing the point of my comments, you aren't reading.
"People will always be greedy and want more possessions in any kind of a system."
Not true. Interviews with peasants who lived in communist China under Mao tell of the optimism and joy of working for the good of society, despite owning only two sets of clothes, having no running water and general poor health. Were they indoctrinated to think this way? Damn straight. We are exactly the same - indoctrinated to demand more and more despite having so much. The same peasants that have since lived in the west still believe in the selflessness of communism over the greed of capitalism.
"I asked you, do you support welfare?"
I support work for welfare - I don't support handouts. I consider welfare and charity ineffective - they are a bandaid on a open festering sore.
"Name a system that does not have moral corruption."
I can't - moral corruption is human. However, capitalism rewards and encourages moral corruption like no other before it.
You defend all the flaws of capitalism by stating that it rewards greed which encourages innovation through competition. You missing a very important consideration. Waste.
I rescind my earlier statement when I agree with you about capitalism being efficient. It's simply not. It is effective in creating demand and consuming resources in an unprecedented scale. Innovation is a by-product of this immense machine, but not nearly so much as waste. Think of all the wonderful technical minds that could have been so useful in the fields of engineering, design, medicine, mathematics, science - instead of the pursuit of a quick dollar in the stock market. And the creative minds that may have conceived fine art, philosophy, literature - instead of wasting away in the world of marketing, peddling crap to the masses. Think of all the useless vocations that support these leeches and the potential they offer if they were re-educated. I think you need to have a serious look back at the important discoveries in history and consider if they were motivated by curiosity and need, or personal gain.
Greed is not synonymous with capitalism. Capitalism is an economic system where capital is privately owned and operated, people can buy and sell with one another. As opposed to socialism where capitalism is state-operated (it does not need to be state operated, but from history nearly all cases of socialism involved state control of the economy). Therefore, just because someone is greedy and wants more in the expense of destroying others that does not make him a capitalist, that just makes him greedy.
ReplyDeleteCapitalism does not say that greed is good or bad. It just acknowledges it and does not prevent people from acting in ways for making more money. Socialism, by your admission, does not acknowledge greed. If so then socialism is stupid. It is stupid because it rejects a very important feature of people. As I said greed existed in all socialist systems that you can name. Especially by the powerful people within socialism. No one is as greedy as a person in power, they are greedy for even more power and control.
You mention that capitalism rewards moral corruption. How? The only way you make money under capitalism is by producing what other people want. If you want to become a millionaire or a billionare then you need to come up with something that will benefit the masses of a greater value. If people do not percieve what you offer to be of any value then you will not make any money. You make money from what other people give you. And if you are able to satisfy their needs you grow and prosper. This is not moral corruption. This is "working for the public good", except here you get greatly rewarded for your work.
You talk about peasants living in China under Mao. As if this is some sort of ideal to strive towards to. The peasants were weak, enslaved, and oppressed in China. Their mentality would be the mentality of the weak-minded people (not that I am blaming the peasants, it was not fault of their own). If that is the kind of mentality that you want, a mentality that teaches denial of yourself and your desires, then so be it, I will not stop you. China was a terrible place to live, I hope you can agree to that. Did you consider all the people killed in China? And did you consider the tyranny that ruled there (and still does to an extent)?
You talk about working for "the good of society". Under whose definition? Who decides what is the "good of society"? The people in power decide what is the good of society? So if the people of power decide for the state to take over the farms and manage them centrally because "for the good of society" and millions of people starve to death as a result that is a good for society? Of course not. It is therefore not a surprise why all socialists countries that I can think of that have existed were tyrannical because they had this kind of a power.
You then go on to talk about how capitalism is terrible because it consumes resources in great amounts.
ReplyDeleteAs I was trying to explain to you capitalism is the best way to deal with the problem of what needs to be produced and to what extent. It does so with pricing systems.
Let me illustrate. Suppose it costs 1 million dollars to recycle one can and it costs 1 dollar to make a new one. Which is better? From just considering costs and benefits making a new one is better than recycling. But if it costs 1 million to dispose of a can because it is made out of metals that need to be buried deep in the group while it costs 1 dollar to recycle a can then recycling would be better.
The point of all of this is not that recycling is an ultimate objective good and using a new resource is an ultimate objective evil. Nor the other way around. It depends on the costs and benefits that go into recycling and not recycling. The only one to know which is the right course of action to take is under a price system. Most importantly a price system that is not fixed or controlled to what the prices need to be.
People who seek to save as much money as possible, or earn as much money as possible (under the pricing system) would be driven through the action of the invisible hand to take the better allocation of resources.
This is precisely why capitalism is necessary. Capitalism is necessary because of, not in spite of, a limited number of resources. If resources were infinite in number then socialism would do just fine. Finite resources is precisely why a pricing system and markets are necessary to deal with the problem of scarcity.
This also address the problem of waste. If you produce something that nobody needs that is waste. If there is a pricing system on what you produce then you will not earn any money. As such you would stop producing. Again the market price system addresses the problem of waste most efficiently.
You mention that, "without regulation from an independent body". This is just silly. How will this independent body manage to determine exactly how much needs to be produces. A central body that manages this problem. How will they determine exactly how much needs to produces and who needs what? There are no gods. There are no gods that can solve this incalculable problem. Furthermore, how can you possibly trust this "independent body" that it will not be miscalculate, or that it will not seek more money for itself, or that it will not use its power for destruction? That is just pure silliness to suggest the moment you create a monopoly it will be free from all the problems that the market faces. This is exactly why we cannot have central monopolistic bodies, because no one can be trusted, more competition is what is needed.
At least you do not say "the state". None of your posts suggest some hard-on that you have towards the state as a lot of people I have to deal with. You never mention it, which is a good thing. But if you are thinking of some state doing that just consider the states been doing this for a long time. And it been chaos. The US has been involved in a lot of manipulation of the economy and I am sure you would agree with me, as you share a hatred to the US, that it has brought forth terrible consequences for the people. How can one continue to look towards the US to solve this problem if they have proven themselves incompetent over and over again.
Many of the problems that the US is facing right now is the abandonment of capitalist economics. This abandonment was happening for a long time already, this is not something recent.
ReplyDeleteA central bank controlling the monetary system, tens of thousands of pages of regulations that restrict free trade from taking place. High levels of taxation that move the incentive of opening a business elsewhere. Where exactly are the US capitalist foundations in any of this?
Free trade brings peace between countries. If one country wants something and another country wants something the other country has, and they are free to trade, they will most likely trade with one another. They will support one another. A peaceful relationship will thus develop between them. But if they cannot trade they will be more likely to go to war with eachother for what they want.
If you want to have a more peaceful world then you should consider free trade rather than being so opposed to it. Remember that when trade does not get passed through borders then armies will.
You say that you do not support welfare. So you agree with the Republicans that welfare needs to end? Right, is that what you admitted?
ReplyDeleteI still find the whole thing funny. You talk about how greed is so terrible and how the capitalists are such greedy people. But in the end I give more than you do (by default as you do not give). This suggests that you are more greedy than I am. And you come up with a pretty bad excuse to why you do not give any money. You say that it does not help. It does help. If you give a poor person money he is now able to afford to buy something for himself that he had difficulty buying before. You might say that it makes them dependend, and that is true. But as far as helping people goes, charity does help people. Installing solar panels, or whatever it is you do, for yourself, does not make other people better.
Let me ask you another question. Do you do random acts of kindness for strangers in the street? Do you at least do that? Do you help a mother carry her stroller up the stairs? Do you hold doors open for other people? Do you give up your seat on the train (or bus, or whatever) for someone else that needs that seat?
For some reason but I think you do not. Maybe I am wrong. But you just do not seem to be the kind of person who does that. You install your solar panels, use the air conditioner less, maybe buy yourself a Prius. And now think you are doing something good for the world. But when it comes to directly helping another person you do not do that and come up with an excuse why you do not do that. So I am lead to believe that you do not do random acts of kindness to strangers either. But you still talk about greed, and how the capitalists are so greedy. Even though I am a capitalist and most likely less greedy than you are - judging from what you have revealed about yourself.
This does not make you wrong. You can still be correct about everything you said before, just a hypocrite. But you are not right, you can read my responses to what you wrote above. If you were a hypocrite and were correct then you can at least be excused for being correct. If you were wrong and passionate about helping people then you can at least be excused for trying to bring good things for others. But you are both wrong and hypocritical. Not sure what else to say there.
And again, as I said, what you are is irrelevant to this discussion. But I just bring it up because the whole thing amuses me. It amuses me so much that in the end you are more greedy than I am.
---
The last thing that I want to mention is what you said about pursuing science, philosophy or art in a capitalist society. What you are confusing is that capitalism is an economic system not a system for living your life. Nowhere does capitalism say that your life needs to be about making money. Capitalism simply says that business should make money to supply the demands of the people. Whatever the people themselves choose to pursue and study and draw is up to them. You can have a sound economic system with people having a wide array of interests. We are talking about economics here. All else is up for people to decide themselves.
Finite resources will never be responsibly managed by profit-driven corporations. If there is money to be made, they will exploit. They use all their wealth to manipulate the population into believing they need the products offered. Who in the hell needs McDonald's for example? It's wasteful, exploitative, and has minimal nutritional value. People need it like a hole in the head, but it's wildly profitable. This is system-driven waste. Resource management through privately dictated pricing structures is completely backward. Finite resources need to be independently audited according to known and projected reserves and allocated accordingly. Ore, oil, oceans, timber, and arable land belong to everybody, but they are being consumed at an unsustainable rate due to capitalist-driven waste.
ReplyDeleteA free market global economy just doesn't work. It always results in wealth shift and wealth condensation - the already wealthy have the resources to improve their position while the poor must toil simply to afford the necessities. The phenomenon is scalable, too - it happens with individuals as well as entire countries. Interest payments on loans given to poor countries by the World Bank and the IMF to improve infrastructure to produce goods for export offset any profits that country might see from free trade. Free trade isn't as bad between rich countries, but when viable local producers are put out of business because similar products can be manufactured cheaper overseas - purely for profit of a differently modelled corporation - then surely anybody can see the waste.
You cannot judge the effectiveness of capitalism by examining the success of western countries. Instead look at the global wealth distribution - it's damning. In 2000, the top 1% of the global adult population owned 40% of global assets, and the top 10% owned 85%. The bottom 50% owned less than 1% of global assets. I'm sure you've read these statistics before, but how can you ignore them, especially in light of them getting worse over time?
Reread my previous statement on welfare. I do support welfare in this economic system, with conditions. The rest of your statements are hearsay. Based on my previous posts, you've made some bold assumptions - all of them incorrect.
As for your last statement.... well, I'm not confused at all. The economic system, as much as the political system, dictates the way in which people live their lives. Do people really like being bankers and stock traders because of the work itself? I doubt it - but it's very well paid, and so it attracts people that otherwise would not be interested. What we have at the moment is a system in which the richest and highest educated people are generally the least productive.
"Finite resources will never be responsibly managed by profit-driven corporations.":
ReplyDeleteThe resources are not being driven by businesses but the market. The business does not care about how resources are being allocated as long as it can make the most amount of money. However, profit, in an uncontrolled market, is the best indication of how resources need to be properly allocated. What businesses want to do with resources is entirely irrelevant, they are all in it for the money. But the market process itself generally sorts out the best allocation of resources.
Sometimes their might be a miscalculation or something like that that makes allocation not optimal. However, there is no other alternative method that is more efficient for resource allocation. Any other alternative method includes central planning which is less efficient.
"Who in the hell needs McDonald's for example?":
McDonald's exists because there are a lot of people who love it. Do they like it for foolish reasons? Probably. McDonald's probably kills way more people than cars do (though this is just a guess that I have). So why does it exist if it is so "bad"? Because "bad" is a subjective preference in this case that the masses decided. Since a big deal of people do not see McDonald's as bad and instead see it as good, as something they can derive benefit from is the reason why McDonald's exist. If McDonald's was hardly useless to anyone in the world it would not exist. The entire reason why McDonald's grew and prospered is because people like it. Because it brings them a benefit. That is why. McDonald's is only satisfying the need of the masses for money. So you have to admit that it brings value to the people that go there. If it did not bring value to the public how can it possibly exist otherwise?
This also explains why a lot of businesses grow. Because of people's stupidity. If the public is very stupid (as it is) then the things that they would desire and derive benefit from will also be really stupid and shameful. All what a business is doing is responding to the desires of the people to make money. If the public is entirely stupid and pathetic do not be surprised that the businesses the grow out of that would be really terrible. Which is why that the proper way to improve the world is through education in philosophy of the masses.
What you are doing is confusing the cause for the effect. You are saying it is the business that made people this stupid, rather the business reflects the desires of the masses. If there was a multi-billion dollar corporation that was for the promotion of mathematical thinking it will run out of business in a week. Because the public hates math and anything which is intellectual. But if you had a multi-billion dollar corporation that was selling the a ShamWow it will probably generate more profit.
The failings in the market system is a reflection of the failing of people. Once the world is more education and enlighted the markets will reflect an enlighted state of people. But here is the thing. These failings, as I was saying, persist under any system. The free market is irrelevant here, this persistence will continue regardless.
"It's wasteful, exploitative, and has minimal nutritional value.":
ReplyDeleteHow it is exploitative?
"Finite resources need to be independently audited according to known and projected reserves and allocated accordingly.":
If you believe in gods then sure this idea makes sense. If you believe in an all-powerful being that has the ability to properly allocate resources then this idea sounds wonderful. I do not believe in gods. I refuse to accept the notion of an entity that cares for the people first and foremost and has the wonderful insight to calculate the economy.
"A free market global economy just doesn't work.":
A free market global economy does work. It is socialism that does not work! See, I can play the same game. I can make the same bold empty dangling statements without justification behind them and make myself then say anything I want.
I have written explaining the basic ideas of capitalism. I have gave you examples of products that you use that directly result from the market system. I have explained how the profit motive drove those innovations. And said that this motive would be much lower if the profit incentive was taken away. You do not refute my ideas, you just ignore them for the most part and continue to repeat exactly what you were saying before. Do you ever read what I tell you? If so can you acknowledge that a lot of innovation that you use came from a market based system? And hence it does "work". The only kind of argument you have left now is that capitalism is not the most effective, or that it is immoral. But at this point you have no excuse anymore repeating "it does not work".
Besides where is there ever been a free trade economy? Never. Never in history. There were unique countries that were friendly to free trade. But there never was a point in history, even to close to it, were these was free trade. But you speak of free trade as if it is some global phenomenon. The global economy is restrictions and regulations.
"Interest payments on loans given to poor countries by the World Bank and the IMF to improve infrastructure to produce goods for export offset any profits that country might see from free trade. Free trade isn't as bad between rich countries, but when viable local producers are put out of business because similar products can be manufactured cheaper overseas - purely for profit of a differently modelled corporation - then surely anybody can see the waste.":
This is the classic economy fallacy of wanting to end imports to other countries because it is destroying jobs in the present country.
There is a direct relationship between imports and exports. If you kill imports you will kill exports. Here is the reason.
Say that Japan imports cars in the US. The US in return gives Japan money. This money is in US dollar currency. But the US dollar is useless in Japan, so it can do one of two things with it. It can either use the US dollar to purchase something, or it can trade the dollar for their own currency.
In the case that they use the US dollar they need to buy stuff from the US, in other words US becomes an exporter and hence earns money doing so.
In the case that Japan decides to trade the currency to China, then China has the US dollar and they now will use it to purchase something in the US, hence US will become an exporter.
But what about the worst-case scenario that the dollar is just recycled around by trading without it being used. Well, this is actually the best scenario, for the US. Think about it. The US is recieving cars in return for meaningless green paper.
For these reasons if you are anti-exports you will be anti-imports and vice-versa.
"Instead look at the global wealth distribution - it's damning.":
ReplyDeleteDo you read what I tell you or do you just ignore my points and move on? I said that I do not care about wealth equality and my entire post was written explaining that. In the end all the matters is the standard of living, which has improved.
"In 2000, the top 1% of the global adult population owned 40% of global assets, and the top 10% owned 85%. The bottom 50% owned less than 1% of global assets. I'm sure you've read these statistics before, but how can you ignore them, especially in light of them getting worse over time?":
Remember that the US promised to create equality for the people. It said it is on the side of the people. It said that it will help out with the poorer people. You can see what a fantastic job they were doing and how much they truly care about the people.
"Reread my previous statement on welfare. I do support welfare in this economic system, with conditions.":
Why do you support welfare? You said you do not support charity. So why do you support welfare? Do you know that welfare is far less efficient than charity is? You objected to charity as being inefficient so how can you then possibly support welfare? Explain what is the big difference in supporting welfare or charity? Both give money to the poor.
"The rest of your statements are hearsay. Based on my previous posts, you've made some bold assumptions - all of them incorrect.":
Hearsay? Hearsay is when I heard statements about you from another person. I heard what I said about you directly from you. That is not hearsay. It may be wrong but it is not hearsay.
You said all of my assumptions are wrong. Not all of them. I am less greedy than you are. Because you do not give any money to charity.
What about the other ones. Do you do random acts of kindness to strangers? If so, what do you do? And how frequently do you do this?
"What we have at the moment is a system in which the richest and highest educated people are generally the least productive.":
Stock traders are not productive? The stock market is not important? The stock market should be entirely abolished, that would be good for the economy? Enterpreneurs who make products that millions of people use are not productive? Yes, I was right, you are confused.
"The resources are not being driven by businesses but the market."
ReplyDeleteWhat? In a traditional sense, businesses are one half of the market (supply vs demand). But businesses can actually control the demand half of the market as well.
"...the market process itself generally sorts out the best allocation of resources."
No it doesn't. Here's an example. A London-based hedge fund has at least three times in the past used its resources to purchase and stockpile huge quantities of cocoa beans. Demand skyrockets due to scarcity, therefore the market price increases. The hedge fund then sells the beans into the market, making a healthy profit. This is manipulation of an unregulated market - certainly not the best allocation of resources. This type of manipulation happens in the free market every day and has absolutely nothing to do with actual demand.
Not to mention your baffling ignorance of resource abundance (and waste) in the "western world", alongside abject poverty in the third world. But of course, this is caused entirely by state intervention, right?
"...the proper way to improve the world is through education in philosophy of the masses."
And how in the hell is that going to happen in a 100% laissez-faire economy, when we all bow to the wishes of corporations? True education is the enemy of the "market" - and philosophy is certainly not profitable. You state that "once the world is more educat[ed] and enlightened" then this system will work - but public-funded education initiatives in the US have been cut so the public can bail out the banks that collapsed in the subprime mortgage crisis.
"How is [McDonald's] exploitative?"
ReplyDeleteHappy meals. On-premise playgrounds. Ronald McDonald the fricking clown! Advertising directly targeted at children during after-school television programming. They prey on the least educated of our population and encourage them to eat sugar- and salt-rich foods which can create a life-long predilection. Mate, don't get me started about fast-food.
"I refuse to accept the notion of an entity that cares for the people first and foremost and has the wonderful insight to calculate the economy."
So you'll settle for profit-driven corporations to sell their wares to people with money - and damn the rest?
I don't make bold empty dangling statements without justification. I've justified how free trade capitalism doesn't work time after time. I justified the statement directly after writing it. Evidence is all around you that it doesn't work. Next you state that there has never been a true free trade economy in history. Well, has there ever been a true Marxist state? Nope. I'm not saying Marxism would work in a pure form, but why are you so sure free trade will work, despite overwhelming evidence that trade liberalisation does nothing but condense wealth? And then you go on to say that I'm ignoring your ideas. What ideas? I'm refuting your statements again and again, but these statements aren't ideas. They are Milton Friedman virtually ad-verbatim.
"This is the classic economy fallacy of wanting to end imports to other countries because it is destroying jobs in the present country."
This statement and your following argument misses the mark entirely. You need to do some reading about Bretton Woods and its subsequent failure - and now the groundswell of support for a new agreement on international trade.
"I said that I do not care about wealth equality and my entire post was written explaining that."
ReplyDeleteYou've made that abundantly clear. All that matters is your standard of living. To hell with the ever-increasing number of people living in poverty.
"Remember that the US promised to create equality for the people. It said it is on the side of the people. It said that it will help out with the poorer people. You can see what a fantastic job they were doing and how much they truly care about the people."
Yes, because the US government is controlled entirely by corporate interests. Democratic elections are nothing of the sort - only the rich or supporters of the rich will prevail. It's not a conspiracy theory - it's a fact.
"Why do you support welfare? You said you do not support charity."
I didn't say I don't support charity - I said I don't give to the poor. I support welfare because (here is where you will disagree) central planning is more efficient. Systematic taxation of the rich to give to the poor. Of course, it's not that perfect, but it's much fairer than relying on guilt! Preposterous! Speaking of efficiency - have you ever seen two McDonald's restaurants side-by-side? Of course not - that would be inefficient distribution of their resources. What I have seen is a Saint Vincent (Catholic) and Anglicare (Anglican) support centres side-by-side in my suburb. They both support the homeless or struggling families, but each have their own agenda. How do you consider that more efficient? Relying on curing world poverty through guilt-based donations to an independent series of administrative-heavy charities, rather than fighting the source of the problem, would be laughable if it wasn't so damned sad.
"You said all of my assumptions are wrong. Not all of them. I am less greedy than you are. Because you do not give any money to charity."
I didn't say that at all, and your statements might as well be hearsay because it's like you heard/read that information from a source other than me. No more assumptions about my personal character from a person who has admitted to driving others to suicide - as you stated in the comment section of one of your other posts.
"Stock traders are not productive? The stock market is not important? The stock market should be entirely abolished, that would be good for the economy? Enterpreneurs who make products that millions of people use are not productive? Yes, I was right, you are confused."
Speculative monetary-based trades are made on a 20 to 1 ratio with actual tangible goods and services. How is this productive? I'm informed, not confused.
"What? In a traditional sense, businesses are one half of the market (supply vs demand). But businesses can actually control the demand half of the market as well.":
ReplyDeleteHow do business control demand? Business will try to make their products more appealing to attract people but ultimately it is decided upon by the people. If you have a problem with McDonald's then it would also make sense to be angry at the people, and not just McDonald's. McDonald's is only supplying them with what they want. What about personal responsibility?
When I talk about the market I am talking about millions of buyers and sellers negotiating with one another under prices systems. When you have such an arrangement the resources will generally be allocated in the best means.
"No it doesn't. Here's an example.":
First of all I never said that the market always allocates resources properly. I said that it generally does. Point to unique examples are pointless here. Besides why go to such complications if all you have to do is point to Hollywood. Hollywood is part of the market. And it is a waste of human talents. All you had to do was point to the worthless world of celebrities as the ultimate case of market failure - and I would have had no defense of the market in that regard.
Second of all your example sounds like it is missing very important details. From my experience of discussions most of these examples turn out having very important details that are avoided. But I will pretend that your story is true and ignore those complications.
Your story about the London business is just a special case of something known as speculation. Not only is speculation not misallocation of resources, it is in fact good for the market. I will not explain it though. You can read a chapter in defense of market speculation here: ( http://mises.org/books/defending.pdf PAGE 165 ).
"Not to mention your baffling ignorance of resource abundance (and waste) in the "western world", alongside abject poverty in the third world. But of course, this is caused entirely by state intervention, right?":
Do you listen to anything I tell you. This is my third time telling you this. Poverty is not caused, and it is not created. Being poor is the natural condition for men. That is how people lived for 99.999% of all history. You can only ask what can alleviate poverty. And yes, poverty has been alliviated with free trade. The world still sucks but it has improved. And yes the state has caused an enormous among of evils in the world, especially in the developing countries like in Africa. The simplest example I can think of right now is DDT. Malaria could have been eradicated in Africa as it has been in Europe and other civilized countries by using DDT. But state bans on DDT has made that very hard. And so many dead people. But I guess you do not care about that because environmentalists hate DDT, even though it is known to save so many lives.
"And how in the hell is (education) that going to happen in a 100% laissez-faire economy, when we all bow to the wishes of corporations?":
ReplyDeleteI addressed this before. Capitalism is simply an economic system. It is not a moral system, it is not a philosophical idea. Just an economic system. Everything else that is part of philosophy, virtue, morality, science, and so forth is part of the people and what their interests are. You need to have a good economy and then people can pursue knowledge for the sake of knowledge. Consider early American history that more closely reflected the capitalist ideal. Was there scientific innovation back then? Sure, at lot, there was a lot of great minds from that time period. Just consider me, for example. I study for the sake of knowledge. Yet I am a capitalist. Oh my science, a contradication ... oh no, wait, there is no contradiction.
What alternative do you propose to education? The state? I am sure you would agree that the state is an epic failure of education. And it keeps getting worse. You can compare the kind of tests children took in 8th grade back in 1900 (or something like that) when there was no state "education", to what they are being taught now. It is quite impressive. The state has no magic want to wave around and make people educated. What do you propose?
Now you talk about corporations. I just want to say that I do not believe in corporations. I do not exactly know how corporations are structured but I do know they are legal entity deriving their existence from the state. For this reason I think if I actually understood how they worked I would be against corporations. Being for capitalism does not mean you are for corporations. In fact, corporations do not support free markets, they rather vote for protection and regulation to defend them from competition. You are making some sort of error of thinking that those for capitalism are for the rich corporations. I wish I was paid money for the ideas that I express from corporations, but sadly that does not happen.
"Mate, don't get me started about fast-food.":
You should watch Penn and Teller's Bullshit video on Fast Food: ( http://www.megavideo.com/?v=7ZM8TNG0 ).
Do you not think you are being unreasonable? People have the right to eat anything they want. Do you acknowledge that? If so then you have no case against McDonald's. People like it, so they eat it. Is it really so hard to understand?
"So you'll settle for profit-driven corporations to sell their wares to people with money - and damn the rest?":
I do not settle with anyone. I just said I do not believe in gods that are selfless and care for you without their own interests. That is all I said. If you want to believe in that and have utopian fantasies then you go ahead.
"I don't make bold empty dangling statements without justification. I've justified how free trade capitalism doesn't work time after time.":
You have no justified anything. You have your talking points (which is okay, I have my own talking points) that you spout out. Then I refute them. You spout them out, and I refute them. To this entire discussion you have no yet explained to me how someone, who had no profit incentive at all, will be as innovative as someone who does have a profit incentive. That is a pretty important point that you have done anything to address. You just assume that without any reward for what people do they will be just as innovative - and so you do make dangling statements. Maybe you are too lazy to fully type out an argument to defend your ideas, and that is excusable, but you do in the end make dangling statements.
"Evidence is all around you that it doesn't work.":
ReplyDeleteThe only kind of evidence that I see from the world is that statism and central planning does not work. The world mostly runs on these ideas. And that is what is a big failure. I do conceede that in the end capitalism fails in the end just like anything else, as humans are doomed to failure, but it fails less in comparison to other ideas.
"Next you state that there has never been a true free trade economy in history. Well, has there ever been a true Marxist state?":
There never was a time in history of a true free economy. Nor do I believe it will happen. But I do say the closer we move into that direction it will be better. Marxism, however, also never existed in true form. But anytime systems were heavily based on central calculation they turned into economic failures. So there does not need to be a pure Marxist economy or a pure free economy to conclude that Marxism sucks and capitalism is sexy.
"despite overwhelming evidence that trade liberalisation does nothing but condense wealth? And then you go on to say that I'm ignoring your ideas. What ideas? I'm refuting your statements again and again, but these statements aren't ideas.":
What evidence, that the world got wealther as the result of free trade? Sorry, but that does not qualify as evidence against my position, but a defense of it.
"They are Milton Friedman virtually ad-verbatim.":
Oh no, Milton Friedman, how scary. I would suppose that you think he is some evil Satan figure on earth.
"You've made that abundantly clear. All that matters is your standard of living. To hell with the ever-increasing number of people living in poverty.":
This is probably my fourth time addressing this. Do you read what I tell you? Let me ask you this question again. Where would you rather live, in an incredibly poor country where everyone is miserable poor; or would you rather live in a rich country where there is inequality? Answer that question straight. And once you answer it then you will answer your own question.
"Yes, because the US government is controlled entirely by corporate interests. Democratic elections are nothing of the sort - only the rich or supporters of the rich will prevail.":
ReplyDeleteOh good, you finally figured that out. Congratulations.
"I didn't say I don't support charity - I said I don't give to the poor.":
If you give to the poor you help them. Why do you not want to give them something to help them?
"I support welfare because central planning is more efficient.":
Yes, 20% is more efficient than 80%. You are a walking contradiction. You say that charity is bad and you do not want to contribute. But welfare, even though it has the same goal as charity, even less efficient, is good.
I also would like an explanation to how central calculation is more efficient? Besides, charities use central calculation also. There is no market on charity. It is rather handed out to the poor from a central calculated system. So again your arguement is self-contradictory.
"They both support the homeless or struggling families, but each have their own agenda. How do you consider that more efficient?":
I do not understand the contradition. Two charities, oh no, how scary. Now more people can be helped. That is just so terrible.
"Relying on curing world poverty through guilt-based donations to an independent series of administrative-heavy charities, rather than fighting the source of the problem":
So your problem with charity is that it is administrative. But of course the state welfare system is not, that just works by magic and less administrative work. You really are a walking contradiction. Talking to you is like dividing by zero.
"No more assumptions about my personal character from a person who has admitted to driving others to suicide - as you stated in the comment section of one of your other posts.":
I am just curious. Do you do random acts of kindness to stranges? And if so, what do you do? I want to hear. Not that this will discredit what you said before, but I want to hear it.
"Speculative monetary-based trades are made on a 20 to 1 ratio with actual tangible goods and services. How is this productive? I'm informed, not confused.":
You say the stock market is bad. Okay. Do this experiment. Abolish the stock market. You for that? You think that is what will make the economy much better?
And now we’ve established you believe that as long as a person has a good quality of life, they will pursue knowledge for the sake of knowledge. Yet you insist on asking me how innovation would occur without a profit motive. Baffling contradiction. Besides, the profit motive has the ability to stifle innovation equally as well as encourage it. Perhaps even moreso. See my earlier statement about the waste of brilliant minds on unproductive vocations. I can even use the theatre of war as an unlikely ally. A disproportionate amount of innovation occurred on either side during the world wars in particular. Under the guise of patriotism, great minds were concentrated on solving tasks that benefited their prospective sides. Not necessarily for monetary gain, but for a "common good".
ReplyDeleteYou also state you would be probably against corporations if you understood them. Corporations are simply the offspring, the natural progression, of businesses under laissez-faire capitalism. How can you be against them? Milton would be very disappointed in you. Corporations do sometimes vote for protection of their markets, but deregulation results in takeovers, mergers and often monopolies – and monopolies don’t need protectionism to favour their interests because their sheer size influences markets in and of itself.
You haven’t refuted any of my points. You repeatedly regurgitate Friedman, attempt to address my points, sidestep many of the others, but at the end of it all you don’t actually manage to discredit anything I write.
Question: how does a free market address externalities? Such as:
Truly unbiased beneficial education
Public health and nutrition
Sustainability and waste
Poverty (especially due to circumstances such as famine or disability)
All these critical points cost money, with little to no profit potential – if they are addressed honestly. Why would corporations want to get involved? Let’s focus on the issue of waste. Waste is absolutely relevant to our quality of life but it is considered a negative externality of the market. Goods can be built cheaply and have built-in obsolescence as long as waste is considered an externality. Why would a free market consider it otherwise? The only way it's going to be relevant to the market is through regulation. Who will regulate without a state or any form of independent authority?
"The world got wealthier as the result of free trade"
The world? More like “the west” and its banks.
"Where would you rather live, in an incredibly poor country where everyone is miserable poor; or would you rather live in a rich country where there is inequality?"
We are going around in circles - and you're fishing in a small pond. Expand your vision. In the theatre of globalization, consider us, the rich "west", to be the elite 10% of the global population. The disparity is massive and there is no poor country that can examined as a microcosm due to the influence we have. You, as a member of the elite, are satisfied with inequality. What a surprise. Why not ask the other 90% how they feel about it?
Now back to something you have sidestepped. You state that quality of life is important, not happiness. What measures do you consider relevant to quality of life?
Asthma, ADHD, peanut allergies, type 2 diabetes…. There are treatments for all these things, but no cures. Treatments that prolong our life without actually making us healthy. Are cures actually being shelved because they are unprofitable? New epidemics are being reported in the news and then vaccines are pumped out and pushed on us at an alarming rate. News corporations and pharmaceuticals often share board members. This is nothing to do with state intervention - this is what free trade brings us.
Back to happiness - you don't care about happiness. Well that just highlights the reason for your points of view. So everyone who wants to be happy should pay you no heed.
"If you give to the poor you help them. Why do you not want to give them something to help them?"
ReplyDeleteI am currently in debt. Every cent I spend therefore incurs interest. Borrowing money from a bank to give to the poor is, in the larger picture, doing exactly the opposite of what is trying to be accomplished.
"So your problem with charity is that it is administrative. But of course the state welfare system is not, that just works by magic and less administrative work. You really are a walking contradiction. Talking to you is like dividing by zero."
I thought you were a math professor. You can't even grasp simple arithmetic. Using a single administrative source to collect data, calculate statistics and provided targeted aid is going to be more efficient than several organisations doing exactly the same tasks independently, then spending money on advertising campaigns, separate call centres, separate accounting structures, separate distribution centres. Free market businesses reduce costs and increase profits by centralizing - YOU are the one making the glaring contradictions.
My example of two identically structured charities situated side by side also somehow bypassed you despite my clear reasoning - efficient distribution of their resources. It would be more efficient if the charities were located in different residential precincts. This surely isn't that hard to fathom.
Some charities are more efficient than government welfare programs. But others are grossly admin-heavy and virtually redundant. Similarly, many government welfare programs fail spectacularly in execution. Attitudes to welfare are stained by obscure government budgetary reporting. Make no mistake, I know our governments are corrupt and poorly managed, but relying on good will to feed the poor in a cut-throat free market is just brutal.
Random acts of kindness are exactly what this world needs more of. Behaviour that transcends personal gain. Yes I do randomly show kindness to strangers, but I couldn’t give you many examples aside from holding doors open for people, showing courtesy while driving, handing a couple of dollars over to people short of money at the grocery store, etc. I don’t really keep score.
As for the abolition of the stock market…. it doesn’t go far enough. The entire global economy is corrupt. “This shit’s got to go”.
Let me repeat this again because you are not getting this. Capitalism and the free market sucks. I never say otherwise. I rather defend capitalism as being the most efficient economic system in comparison to other systems. That is all I do. You talk about how terrible capitalism is. Okay, maybe, it does not really bother me nor concern me. As my only argument about it has been that it is more efficient than any alternative. And whatever suckiness you have in it will persist and may be even worst under other economic systems. Because in the end people are selfish (you included) stupid meatbags.
ReplyDelete"And now we’ve established you believe that as long as a person has a good quality of life, they will pursue knowledge for the sake of knowledge. Yet you insist on asking me how innovation would occur without a profit motive. Baffling contradiction.":
You do not read anything that I say. I tell you my position and you entirely ignore it. You do not care to learn what I really think - which is why I tell you something and you entirely ignore it and repeat the same questions.
So let me repeat myself again. Pay attention this time, it is not hard. I said that the profit motif is a big incentive for innovation. That is all I said. If you actually read and understood my position you would be making this mistake. I did not say that profit is necessary for innovation. And I did not say that without profit no innovation would talk place. I said that profit drives innovation at high rates. And I also said that if you eliminate profit and the abilities of businesses to earn money from their innovation you will severley damage a huge number of innovations. And this is true. This is precisely why high taxation kill innovation as business simply move elsewhere. I cannot imagine how one can possibly have a rebuttal to this common sense economic idea. Indeed, you never refute it. You just insist innovation will talk place, which is not at all what I am saying. Stick to the actual discussion. Do not make it easier for yourself.
"You also state you would be probably against corporations if you understood them. Corporations are simply the offspring, the natural progression, of businesses under laissez-faire capitalism. How can you be against them?":
I do not know exactly how corporations work and what they are. And neither do you. This description of corporations is very wrong. You probably are just conditions to hate 'corporations' whenever you see that word without even realizing what it is. Let me tell you a little about corporations. Corporations are legal entities that are formed by the state. These entities have the ability to 'privatize their profits and socialize their losses'. Tell me then how this is related to laissez-faire capitalism? It seems to be contrary to it from what I know. Of course, I do not know much about it, so I cannot say.
"Monopolies don’t need protectionism to favour their interests because their sheer size influences markets in and of itself.":
ReplyDeleteYes they do. You probably do not know what monopolies are either, as you do not know what corporations are. But this is an off topic question. We are talking about equality, stick to the topic not monopolies.
"You haven’t refuted any of my points. You repeatedly regurgitate Friedman, attempt to address my points, sidestep many of the others, but at the end of it all you don’t actually manage to discredit anything I write.":
For example? It is easy to make dangling statement with no justification for them. Watch this, 'why do you sodomize little children?'. See how easy it is when I do not need to defend what I am saying?
I have responded to every question you have asked. Just because you do not like my answers does not mean I am not responding to you. You, however, are not so. You do ignore me questions. As my question of where would the incentive for innovation come from without a profit motive?
Did you even read or watch Milton? I doubt it. You probably heard from a college professor, or some book, about how is the embodiment of pure evil. So now you hate a person without actually knowing what his postions are.
"Truly unbiased beneficial education.":
How does a free market address the supply of pixies at a bottom of a unicorn valley?
It does not, there is no such thing.
And the state is even worse. The current educational system is state run it is contrary to anything that you would like. Yet you again blame the market.
"Public health and nutrition.":
ReplyDeletePeople are responsible for their own health. If some guy wants to stuff his face all day long in McDonald's he has the right to do that. Health and nutrition is what people need to address themselves. The market simply supplies what people want. McDonald's does have healthy foods but hardly anybody buys them because healthy food is disgusting to eat. People choose themselves what they want, markets just supply those desires.
"Sustainability and waste.":
I address this before. You just do not read anything I tell you. Ignore my comments and repeat your question all over again.
"Poverty (especially due to circumstances such as famine or disability)":
I have no idea what you are asking. I am sure that I already answered this before.
"Goods can be built cheaply and have built-in obsolescence as long as waste is considered an externality. Why would a free market consider it otherwise?":
Another conspiracy theory? Why is everything about you a conspiracy theory? Why come up with such complicated ideas when there are simple explanations. I linked up for you a chapter from a book that explains why there is no obsolescene and why there is a simply economic explanation for bad quality products. Did you bother to read it? Of course not. You again ignore what I answer and repeat the same position again.
"The only way it's going to be relevant to the market is through regulation. Who will regulate without a state or any form of independent authority?":
So you are a statist after all. How sad. All our previous discussions I have a little happy to know that at least you are not a statist. But you are.
You question is foolish beyond stupitiy. You admit, as you said, that the state is corrupt, does not care for anything but power and profit, is not about making things right. Then you come out and say 'we need the state to watch over this'. Yes because the state has proven itself to be a trustworthy institution that you can put your hopes into. You realize the terrible corruption and still praise the state to save you. What an astounding case of doublethink.
"The world? More like 'the west' and its banks.":
Africa got richer from free trade. This is not even something to be argued over as it is measured to be the case. Consider that Africa now has cars which it did not have before. Consider that it has internet access. Consider that it has an easier access to medical care and to food. All of these improvement only mean that it has got richer. And you somehow insist that it got poorer. How much poorer can people get? I would imagine that there is a limit to how poor someone can get. But you insist that the poorerst possible person can get poorer. It does not make any sense not only invalidated by what we can measure.
"Using a single administrative source to collect data, calculate statistics and provided targeted aid is going to be more efficient than several organisations doing exactly the same tasks independently, then spending money on advertising campaigns, separate call centres, separate accounting structures, separate distribution centres. Free market businesses reduce costs and increase profits by centralizing - YOU are the one making the glaring contradictions.":
ReplyDeleteWhere is the contradiction? If you want to say I am wrong then that is not the same as saying I made a contradiction. You can be wrong without a contradiction. And what does this have to do with math?
Charities are not operating on the concepts of capitalism, charities are also centrally planned. They are instead just collecting money to give out to other people. And yes charities are way way more efficient than government programs of welfare.
You then go on to say that welfare is more efficient than charity as it has a single source of information. There are two problems with this. First, this is just not true as charities have higher rates of return than welfare. Second, your argument assumes that welfare is already operating at the same efficiency as charity. You are implicitly assuming it is just as productive as charity, and it is not, as there is a ton more paperwork to do done. So where is my contradiction?
"My example of two identically structured charities situated side by side also somehow bypassed you despite my clear reasoning - efficient distribution of their resources. It would be more efficient if the charities were located in different residential precincts. This surely isn't that hard to fathom.":
I am not sure what the point of this is? What are you trying to say? That charity can be provided more efficiently? It can, but it is currently provided quite efficiently. I do not see what complaint you can have to people devoting their time to help others just because it is not as efficient as it can be.
"relying on good will to feed the poor in a cut-throat free market is just brutal":
Again, charities do not operate through capitalism. They just redistribute money around. It is different from the business world.
"Behaviour that transcends personal gain.":
This is stupid. People should make themselves worse off to make someone else better? I said that people should help others when they can, not inflict damage on themselves to help another.
"As for the abolition of the stock market…. it doesn’t go far enough. The entire global economy is corrupt.":
That is not what I asked you. I asked you if you think the economy will get better off if you were to abolish the stock market? I think we both know the answer to that question.
Baruch, your latest series of posts appears to involve a lot of backpedalling and desperate clarification of your points. Let me be clear: I read each and every word of your posts and understand your points. You can stop whining that I don’t.
ReplyDeleteLet’s first address your latest paragraph about the profit motive driving innovation. You first bring this up on Feb 23 at 10.59am, again on Feb 24 at 5.53pm, and again on March 4 at 6.51pm. I questioned your statement in my last series of posts on March 27 by logically arguing that the profit motive can stifle innovation as much as encourage it. If we were to remove the profit motive, I agree that some innovation will be killed – of course - but it will prosper in many other areas. I dedicated an entire paragraph to this topic, but you skipped it over in your latest hissy fit. I understand your question, I’ve read your argument, I’ve addressed it, and I disagree with your overall position. OK?
Next, your understanding of the definition of a corporation reads like you looked it up on Wikipedia, but missed the gist of it. Corporations are not created by the State; they are created privately in observance of State law. It is a natural progression for a very large company, since the operation of that company often transcends any one owner or group, so it reduces the legal liability for them as individuals. However, legal action can still take place against the true operators of the corporations. The quote (you probably gleaned from Wikipedia) “privatize their profits and socialize their losses” misses the point again. ALL companies privatize their profits. And all companies, to a degree, socialise their losses insofar as losses affect their employees as well as the market in which they play. The socialization of losses (and profits) is done through the stock market, of which you are a proponent. So are you for corporations or against them? Again with the contradictions.
You then sidestep my point about monopolies with a single dangling statement, which you then gore me about. Talk about hypocritical.
I’ve watched interviews and read articles by Friedman, but not read his books. I intend to, but I don’t expect them to do anything except exasperate me. I don’t think he’s evil, but he’s arrogant and obtuse. He is obviously a very intelligent man, but he has a very pessimistic opinion of humanity - just like you. I think it’s more important to use history to help us evolve, than to use it as a static example of our condition. He believes that we’ll never be any different and so let’s perpetuate a system to satisfy the greediest of us all and let the rest wither and die. He is single-minded economical thinker and fails to consider anything else. However, this is only the impression I’ve gleaned from maybe a dozen interviews and articles. This is the impression I get from you, as he is one of your idols, so I believe it is a fair inference.
ReplyDeleteYour repeated statements about angels, pixies and magical elves – implying that altruism, impartiality, fairness are fantasies – underline your disdain for humanity. The current state of government is as bad as the market because they are a part of the market (by which I mean the financial system) and all its consequences.
I can use a similar argument to address personal responsibility for our own health. This is true up to a point. The current state of people’s health is directly attributable to the system in which they live. A lack of unbiased health education, the persuasiveness and pervasiveness of advertising, a lack of availability of cheap raw foods all contribute to conditions such as obesity, diabetes, food allergies, which are all in epidemic proportions. How can you argue for responsibility when so much is working against us?
You state that healthy food is disgusting, but there is a reason for this. Raw foods are now mass produced, picked green and stored long term. This reduces the nutrients and flavour. In addition, high sugar and salt diets desensitise your sense of taste, resulting in the cumulative effect of needing to add more artificial flavouring to self-satisfy. I personally have a primarily organic diet, which costs more in some ways, less in others, but has the flow on effect of low body fat, more energy, higher concentration. I was also brought up by my parents with a low sugar and salt diet. These additives were often halved in recipes (I have my mother’s old recipe books as evidence). As a result, fast food is far too salty for my tastes, and breakfast cereals and desserts are far too sweet. It’s all about education and conditioning. We are now conditioned to eat crap.
So how do we educate properly? Where is the incentive? Do we get rid of the state and allow corporations or companies to dictate what we learn? Or course not. Do we allow a state or independent body to control the syllabus? Preferably, but only if they are unbiased – easier said than done, especially in this financial system where this is little separation between business and politics. Do we focus on putting pressure on places like McDonald’s and its ilk to include healthier menu items while simultaneously reducing their advertising exposure to children? It’s not the answer, but it helps. Do we support local primary producers, and purchase natural, in-season foods to reduce our exposure to months-old flavour- and nutrient-deficient produce from overseas? Produce that has to travel miles and miles and consume barrels of oil to arrive at its destination. Furthermore, local products are subject to local oversight, and consumers are more likely to be involved in how they are created – but the same consumers play deaf and dumb on issues that are normally important to them when similar products come from overseas – by virtue of distance. Do we target the influence of corporations like Monsanto and Chiquita, who control the economies of entire countries with the help of structural adjustment packages from the World Bank and IMF, so that produce can be cheaply supplied to the United States in particular? Cheap food that puts strain on local producers to supply competitive products for the reasons stated above. It is not conspiracy, it is fact, and it’s proof positive of deficiency in the system that is moving further toward unregulated free market; which you support. Because we get cheap “food”. Note the quotation marks.
ReplyDeleteBuilt-in obsolescence is not a conspiracy theory. It’s the case with cheap watches, cheap whitegoods, new cars. They are built by companies knowing that they have a limited lifespan, will be discarded – usually in landfill - and repurchased in, hopefully, 6 months (watch), 3 years (white good) and 5 years (car) respectively. Repeat sales are a part of the business plan. It’s even happening with food. GM seeds – specifically, terminator seeds - prevent re-germination so that farmers are forced to purchase seeds every single year instead of relying on natural processes. This is not a conspiracy – this is fact. It is not necessarily done for nefarious reasons, but for economic reasons. It’s easy because the consequences of obsolescence – namely waste and pollution - are negative externalities. Until the companies are forced to address these consequences (and this won’t happen in a laissez-faire system), then nothing will change. Timber and metal resources will run low, oil scarcity will increase, air pollution, ground water contamination, the Pacific garbage patch will all worsen. None of these are conspiracies. Global warming isn’t even on my radar, because there are so many other consequences of our actions that are so much more tangible and evident. Too much time is being wasted trying to convince selfish deniers that their habits must change.
“People should make themselves worse off to make someone else better? I said that people should help others when they can, not inflict damage on themselves to help another. “
And this attitude just illustrates my point. We have to voluntarily sacrifice some of our conveniences to preserve our quality of life. Or it will be thrust upon us with graver penalties. It’s not to “make someone else better” it’s to help everyone and make everything better – except maybe the top 1%.
Finally, Africa did not get richer from free trade. Its technology progressed due to trade (notice the absence of “free” – do you know the difference?), but it has stayed poor due to free trade forced upon them through structural adjustment programs. This overall failing has been admitted by the World Bank and IMF, but still nothing changes. Read about these organisations and SAPs – and how these policies consistently fail to help poor countries, and in fact make their situations worse. You need to understand these organisations to realise why your support of the free market system is, I’m sorry to say, maintained by a combination of misinformation and ignorance.
ReplyDelete"If we were to remove the profit motive, I agree that some innovation will be killed – of course - but it will prosper in many other areas.":
ReplyDeleteWill there be more innovation or less innovation in total without a reward for people to innovate? I am not asking you whether or not innovation will take place, but to what degree. That is what I want to know. It is pure studipity to suggest that as much innovation will take place.
"Next, your understanding of the definition of a corporation reads like you looked it up on Wikipedia, but missed the gist of it.":
I did not go on Wikipedia and start reading about corporations. I did that like a year ago when I was interested to know the techincal details. I am still bi-confused about exactly what they are. I do know, however, that many evil laissez-faire capitalists who actually understand corporations in detail hold the view that corporations needs to be abolished in the free market. So I am not pulling this out of my anus. There are some state-related issues with regard to corporations that might make them not compatible with the free market.
"Again with the contradictions.":
Do you know what a contradiction is? A contradiction is when you say one thing and then say something else opposite to what you said before. That is a contradiction. If I said that corporations are compatible with the free market and then I said that corporations need to end or at least seriously reformed then I would be in contradiction. But I said that corporations are probably not compatible with the free market and so they need to end or be seriously reformed. This is not a contradiction. I may be wrong but I am not being contradictory. Let me give you one more example of a contradiction.
Here is an example of a contradiction, 'I do not agree with charities because charity does not alleviate the condition but I still support welfare'.
"You then sidestep my point about monopolies with a single dangling statement, which you then gore me about. Talk about hypocritical.":
It was hypocritical. It was a conscious decision for me to do that. I knew what I was doing and did it nonetheless. Because I am not interested in discussing monopolies. You can go and read about them if you want. If I had a multipart written series on them I would simply redirect you, but since I do not you can go and read it elsewhere. Monopolies are off topic here, this is supposed to be about equality.
"I don’t think he’s evil, but he’s arrogant and obtuse.":
ReplyDeleteSo am I, and so are you.
Truth is independent of he who speaks it, be he virtous or vile. So even if I am the most evil person in the world who hates people and the poor and loves the rich as you think about me it is all irrelevent to what is true or not.
Then you go on talking about health food. Health foods is not something I talk about. I am not one of those health people. I got nothing to say on health foods, other than that organic food is bullshit. You can watch Penn and Teller's video on it if you want to.
Also that you are again foolish for going after fast food places who sell food. I said that health food tastes disgusting. Why is it that children prefer candy? Because it is sweet? And why do we prefer sweet things because we are naturally make by evolution to go after sweeter substances that give us more energy. You again create a conspiracy theory out of something which has an extremely simply naturalistic explanation.
"So how do we educate properly? Where is the incentive?":
I have my own, rather radical ideas, about education. Maybe when I organize my thoughts together I can write a post on education. You can then read what I think there. It is very different to how it is today.
"Do we allow a state or independent body to control the syllabus? Preferably, but only if they are unbiased – easier said than done, especially in this financial system where this is little separation between business and politics.":
You are a fool. You just talked about how evil monopolies were. And now you want a single monopoly to control education, to manipulate the content, and decide what people get. You are a fool beyond fools. All past history shows how dangerous it is to trust anyone with the power to decide what can be taught. But you ignore that and belive that this is what needs to be done. As I said, you are a statist. You are a statist in disguse who trys to sound as if you are offering something new.
"It is not conspiracy, it is fact, and it’s proof positive of deficiency in the system that is moving further toward unregulated free market.":
ReplyDeleteYou keep on saying this over and over again. How would you say if I talked about how this socialist system is failing. You would object and ask me how this is socialism. Well that is exactly what you are doing. You are repeating insisting that world is using free market principles. I refuted this. And you insist on saying this. Do you read anything that I tell you? I have responded to this already. Why do you ignore everything and continue to insist how there is a global free market crises. Why is there a central bank? Why are the 50,000 pages of regulations on industries? Why is the tax code 40,000 pages long? Why were their bailouts? Think about what you post. Do not just pull stuff out of your anus and say how you this is all free market.
"Built-in obsolescence is not a conspiracy theory.":
Did you read the link I provided?
And it is a conspiracy theory. You are saying that business are on purporse making stuff worse than it should be made. That is what you are saying. That is exactly a conspiracy theory. Everything about you is a conspiracy theory. You may try to argue why this conspiracy theory is true, but it is a conspiracy theory nonetheless as it implies there is something evil and secretive going on behind closed doors.
"And this attitude just illustrates my point. We have to voluntarily sacrifice some of our conveniences to preserve our quality of life. Or it will be thrust upon us with graver penalties.":
So people should hurt and bring pain among themselves to help other people?
"Finally, Africa did not get richer from free trade. Its technology progressed due to trade (notice the absence of “free” – do you know the difference?), but it has stayed poor due to free trade forced upon them through structural adjustment programs.":
So you do agree then that Africa did get richer? Before you were saying how Africa is getting poorer and poorer. Now you are saying that Africa is richer. Except you say it had nothing to do with free trade but that it was trade. Trade made Africa richer. So you agree with that part. Free trade is simply trade that is taken without any restrictions. It makes no sense at all to say that trade made it richer but not free trade. Why would Africa continue to trade freely and make itself more miserable in the process. It makes no sense at all.
"Will there be more innovation or less innovation in total without a reward for people to innovate?"
ReplyDeleteYou mean monetary reward. Some of history's greatest innovations are the product of curiosity and/or accident, not monetary reward. Let's not get started with making lists of wealthy or poor inventors and their personal motivations, but in my opinion you are overstating the value of monetary reward - I stand by my statement that money more of a hindrance to innovation than it is of benefit. So I believe that in a modern educated equal society (if there ever could be such a place), there would be a more useful innovation than in a monetary-based economy. The clause I wrote in brackets is a major one, but we are talking hypothetically.
Yes, I know the definition of contradiction. Your distaste for corporations may be interpreted to be contradictory of your support for laissez-faire capitalism.
"So even if I am the most evil person in the world who hates people and the poor and loves the rich as you think about me it is all irrelevant to what is true or not."
You started the OT discussion by incorrectly asserting my personal opinion of Milton Friedman.
You then asked me to watch that Penn and Teller video again, so I did. Can I please have my 25 minutes back? Actually, fuck it, my time is worthless to me now as I'm officially dumber for having watched it. That had to be the stupidest thing I've watched in a very long time, and I've watched a lot of conspiracy theory CRAP lately, but at least there is some imagination at work in those pieces. I could write an essay on how awful that episode is, so I won't go into individual points here - another OT discussion. I brought up McDonald's purely as an example in one of my first posts – you picked it out and blew the whole thing out of proportion to the original discussion. Besides, you confirmed my argument in the first sentence of your reply to my paragraph:
"McDonald's exists because there are a lot of people who love it. Do they like it for foolish reasons? Probably."
Yes! It comes back to education. I have a feeling our arguments may align a little more closely when talking education, although I should probably wait until you can organise your thoughts and write about them - I would be interested to know what they are. I believe there should certainly be a choice for students even from the earliest age. Our education should flow organically based on aptitude; we should not be forced onto a designated path or fit into a pre-determined box. I misspoke earlier when I said that a central body should "control" the educational syllabus. I should have said "guide" the syllabus. If we didn't have an organisation or co-operative to collate useful information, then from who or where could we get our information and ensure it is unbiased yet accurate? This is the question.
Regardless of how poorly our states are currently being managed and how corrupt they have become, governments are quite simply groups of people elected to represent the greater population of their respective locations. At present, the election process is inherently tainted - the chosen officials don't even come close to representing the people. You demonize me because I support a form of state, but I certainly don't support our current state. Alternatively, I don't believe anarchy would work, either. Quick question: do you agree with the concept of personal property, and if so, do you disagree with the concept of political anarchy? If not, isn't it a contradiction?
ReplyDelete“Why do you ignore everything and continue to insist how there is a global free market crises. Why is there a central bank?”
Central banks are privately owned! Governments don’t control the money supply, they merely participate.
“Why were their bailouts?”
The banks were bailed out not because of law, but because of pressure from banking leaders that convinced the people’s representatively in Congress that the sky would fall down if they didn’t get the money. Not from “regulations”. Point me to a regulation or law that says the government needs to give money to banks if they fail.
Picture this: a man with a boat full of coffee beans chances upon an island nation. He sells the coffee to the nation's people and over time they become addicted to the coffee and cannot do without it. The boat can only hold so much coffee and the demand increases and the prices get higher and higher. The man making a lot of money, but he spends all his money on booze. One day the man, driving drunk, steers his boat onto some rocks and smashes the hull to pieces. The man is broke and there will be no more coffee.... unless.... the man appeals to the leaders of the nation to give him money so that he can repair his boat and bring them more coffee. They agree, even though the smarter thing to do would be to give the money to the people to buy their own boat and source their own coffee. Wow, that was a pretty clumsy example, but at least it’s original. Do you think it illustrates a point sufficiently, despite being overly simplistic?
You keep using the term “conspiracy” to describe obsolescence. Things are definitely being made worse than they could be - due to economics. To be competitive, companies must either make their goods better than the rest, or offer them at lower prices. The latter is normally the case. Thinner metals, substitution of plastics for metal or glass, soft timber or particleboard instead of hard timber…. the list is endless. Look around your house; can you list any electrical item that you would expect to last 50, or even 20 years? Look closely: could they be possibly made to last 50 years? Some items would struggle to last 5 years. Computers, printers, refrigerators, washing machines are all made to such poor standard and a low price point that it makes more economic sense to a consumer to simply throw out that item and buy a new one. The waste is a negative externality of the market, as it stands now, but it won’t be external when the oil to make the plastics, the ore to make the metals, the precious metal to make the batteries, all become so scarce that they are unaffordable. Those same companies couldn't give a shit because all they are worried about is the bottom line for the next year or two – five years at the most. It’s not evil and secretive – it’s right out in the open, but people are too stupid to see the consequences.
And you need to stop your commentary about African nations and start reading a bit more. I stated that trade progressed technology in Africa, as it did everywhere. I do not agree that free trade made them richer. You use the term “rich” when nothing could be further from the truth. You say I make no sense, but you are the one adding the nonsense to the argument. All African nations are currently bogged in a mountain of unpayable debt. They are convinced by the IMF and World Bank that the borrow/invest/export/repay cycle is infallible when in fact it’s the direct cause of their misery. Once a nation is indebted, it has no choice but to continue to attempt to pay that debt. That doesn't just apply to African nations. Read a book called “Goodbye America!” by Michael Rowbotham. Whilst not impeccably written, it imbues a solid understanding of the debt burden and how it is perpetuated by the free-market ideology.
ReplyDelete