NationStates Jolt Archive

http://csmonitor.com/2004/0526/p07s01-woaf.html

Shows property rights are crucial for getting slum dwellers get out the gutters.

Nobody will care because it counters the interventionist/left wing philosophy of the majority of people in this forum

too bad none of the socialist have taken Econ 101, so the message will be lost.

Of course, these people are the world's poorest under a capitalist system. Saying that capitalism is helping them out of the poverty they are enduring because of capitalism seems a little... circular, to me. Then again, I've never studied economics. I will bow to the superior experience of the prognosticators, soothsayers and astrologers of the Dismal Science. :wink:

government giving land away for free? Charity (probably government subsidised, as in many countries charities are).

Sounds very free market to me. Look more like a little intervention in the right way. That is that they encourage investment work by giving incetives to improve the land. Or at least thats the way of looking at it from the other side.

Im leftie and doing economics at a fairly high level. The free market doesnty always work perfectly. What has happened here is that rather than crude and blunt intervention the government has given it a nudge and helped it work.

It should read "the government helping capitalism to help the poor".

http://csmonitor.com/2004/0526/p07s01-woaf.html

Shows property rights are crucial for getting slum dwellers get out the gutters.
you know that if the government owned the land and just gave the poor the right to exploit a certain share of it it would come down to the same, right?

Of course, these people are the world's poorest under a capitalist system. Saying that capitalism is helping them out of the poverty they are enduring because of capitalism seems a little... circular, to me. Then again, I've never studied economics. I will bow to the superior experience of the prognosticators, soothsayers and astrologers of the Dismal Science. :wink:
Most of Africa has been plagued with socialism, imperialism and corrupt govt. This is why Africa is poor and Japan is not. Free markets haven't been tried in Africa so I don't understand why you'd blame the market for their problems
government giving land away for free? Charity (probably government subsidised, as in many countries charities are).

Sounds very free market to me. Look more like a little intervention in the right way. That is that they encourage investment work by giving incetives to improve the land. Or at least thats the way of looking at it from the other side.

Im leftie and doing economics at a fairly high level. The free market doesnty always work perfectly. What has happened here is that rather than crude and blunt intervention the government has given it a nudge and helped it work.

It should read "the government helping capitalism to help the poor".
Part of the free market system is the right to claim unowned property by bringing it into production. The govt denied them this right by claiming the land for itself. By denying people the human right to own property the govt has kept them impoverished.

The failure you attribute to the market is the govt (socialised) provision of justice not working properly.

you know that if the government owned the land and just gave the poor the right to exploit a certain share of it it would come down to the same, right?
No. If they don't own the property they have no incentive to invest in it. If you rent a car you don't check the oil. If you buy a car you do because keeping it working is in your long term interest.

Of course, these people are the world's poorest under a capitalist system. Saying that capitalism is helping them out of the poverty they are enduring because of capitalism seems a little... circular, to me. Then again, I've never studied economics. I will bow to the superior experience of the prognosticators, soothsayers and astrologers of the Dismal Science. :wink:
Most of Africa has been plagued with socialism, imperialism and corrupt govt. This is why Africa is poor and Japan is not. Free markets haven't been tried in Africa so I don't understand why you'd blame the market for their problems
government giving land away for free? Charity (probably government subsidised, as in many countries charities are).

Sounds very free market to me. Look more like a little intervention in the right way. That is that they encourage investment work by giving incetives to improve the land. Or at least thats the way of looking at it from the other side.

Im leftie and doing economics at a fairly high level. The free market doesnty always work perfectly. What has happened here is that rather than crude and blunt intervention the government has given it a nudge and helped it work.

It should read "the government helping capitalism to help the poor".
Part of the free market system is the right to claim unowned property by bringing it into production. The govt denied them this right by claiming the land for itself. By denying people the human right to own property the govt has kept them impoverished.

The failure you attribute to the market is the govt (socialised) provision of justice not working properly.

you know that if the government owned the land and just gave the poor the right to exploit a certain share of it it would come down to the same, right?
No. If they don't own the property they have no incentive to invest in it. If you rent a car you don't check the oil. If you buy a car you do because keeping it working is in your long term interest.

Most of Africa has been plagued with socialism, imperialism and corrupt govt. This is why Africa is poor and Japan is not. Free markets haven't been tried in Africa so I don't understand why you'd blame the market for their problems

Large numbers of Africans were carried off in chains by, and to, a free market. Japan has had its fair share of feudalism, imperialism and corrupt government, along with a massive, post-war state- and USA-funded reconstruction programme. This latter, IMO, is why Japan is no longer poor. Also, Japan is a nation, Africa is a continent: worth considering.

I don't blame the market for Africa's problems. I blame the human beings; some in Africa, most in the West. Human beings are real; "market forces" aren't.

Shows property rights are crucial for getting slum dwellers get out the gutters.

no, it doesn't. it shows that a good way to deal with slums and housing problems is to turn squatted land and buildings over to the squatters. that's just about the exact opposite of capitalist property rights, and much more in line with socialist (or at least anarchist) notions of possession.

http://www.symbols.com/pics/big/53/5342.gif

"Must crush capitalism", Lenin on 'The Simpsons'

Capitalism sucks, end of story.

"Must crush capitalism", Lenin on 'The Simpsons'

Capitalism sucks, end of story.

"Must crush capitalism", Lenin on 'The Simpsons'

Capitalism sucks, end of story.

Free Soviets is absolutely right.

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Free Soviets is absolutely right.

i'm actually quite glad that some of the libertarians around here have taken up supporting squatter movements. maybe they'll expand that support to landless movements in general.

Free Soviets is absolutely right.

i'm actually quite glad that some of the libertarians around here have taken up supporting squatter movements. maybe they'll expand that support to landless movements in general.
We don't see govt as having any claim to any property since it either stole it or bought it with stolen money. Govt property is therefore unowned and may be claimed by anyone who brings it into use. Also, I would agree that many private property claims as presently defined today are invalid.

Shows property rights are crucial for getting slum dwellers get out the gutters.

no, it doesn't. it shows that a good way to deal with slums and housing problems is to turn squatted land and buildings over to the squatters. that's just about the exact opposite of capitalist property rights, and much more in line with socialist (or at least anarchist) notions of possession.
This is precisely in line with the libertarian view of property. Govt land is owned by nobody and may thus be claimed by anyone who brings it into use. Before, when they weren't actually owners of the property, they had no incentive to improve it. Now that they have the property rights they do have incentives to improve it.

Most of Africa has been plagued with socialism, imperialism and corrupt govt. This is why Africa is poor and Japan is not. Free markets haven't been tried in Africa so I don't understand why you'd blame the market for their problems

Large numbers of Africans were carried off in chains by, and to, a free market. Japan has had its fair share of feudalism, imperialism and corrupt government, along with a massive, post-war state- and USA-funded reconstruction programme. This latter, IMO, is why Japan is no longer poor. Also, Japan is a nation, Africa is a continent: worth considering.

If people are enslaved the market is by definition unfree. But the slavery was largely carried out by private companies, I agree (although other Africans collaborated in selling their neighbours to the West). I think this was inevitable under any system at the time.

All the rich countries in E. Asia got there by freeing their markets. China tried a state run economy and look what happened there.

I agree. Capitalizm is the best.

Most of Africa has been plagued with socialism, imperialism and corrupt govt. This is why Africa is poor and Japan is not. Free markets haven't been tried in Africa so I don't understand why you'd blame the market for their problems

Most of Scandanavia is plauged with a democratic socialism, they have the highest quality of life in the world (according to various indexes created mostly by overtly capitalist countries ;) )

Most of Africa has been plagued with socialism, imperialism and corrupt govt. This is why Africa is poor and Japan is not. Free markets haven't been tried in Africa so I don't understand why you'd blame the market for their problems

Most of Scandanavia is plauged with a democratic socialism, they have the highest quality of life in the world (according to various indexes created mostly by overtly capitalist countries ;) )

I beg to differ (for the 5th time):

http://www.objectivists.org.au/May09-1999/sweden.htm

too bad none of the socialist have taken Econ 101, so the message will be lost.

I am a socialist and I have. Are you implying that we are all uneducated morons?

too bad none of the socialist have taken Econ 101, so the message will be lost.

I am a socialist and I have. Are you implying that we are all uneducated morons?
Educated morons are so much worse than uneducated ones :lol: . Seriously though, most intellectuals tend to be socialists except for economists.

Are you a Keynesian, then? I think Keynesianism only has followers because it's what people want to hear, if economics was as dispassionate as physics Keynes would have gone the way of Ptolemy by now.

too bad none of the socialist have taken Econ 101, so the message will be lost.

I am a socialist and I have. Are you implying that we are all uneducated morons?
Educated morons are so much worse than uneducated ones :lol: . Seriously though, most intellectuals tend to be socialists except for economists.

Are you a Keynesian, then? I think Keynesianism only has followers because it's what people want to hear, if economics was as dispassionate as physics Keynes would have gone the way of Ptolemy by now.

No, i'm not. I do however believe that social welfare programs need to be improved, and focus should shift from immediate economic growth to long term sustainability.

Educated morons are so much worse than uneducated ones :lol: . Seriously though, most intellectuals tend to be socialists except for economists.

Are you a Keynesian, then? I think Keynesianism only has followers because it's what people want to hear, if economics was as dispassionate as physics Keynes would have gone the way of Ptolemy by now.

If economics was comparable to any sort of science, then we wouldn't have "Keynsians" or "monetarists". Honestly, can we not just admit that the whole thing is a pack of lies, blind assumptions, vague generalisations and rough rules of thumb? If economics was remotely scientific, then you wouldn't get such wildly contradictory theories.

Economics is a myth, clung to with religious fervour by a post-religious society. Like religion before it, ideologues and dogmatists are going around the planet spreading misery in the name of their weird fixations. The Marxists had their turn, and now it's the Free Marketeers -- "All for One, and More for Me!". These fundamentalists have taken control of the IMF and the World Bank and are going around "deregulating" and "opening up to competition" some of the poorest countries on earth. In every single case, the results have been unarguably disastrous, as nascent industries and basic infrastructures are exposed to swarms of rapacious asset-strippers and quick-buck merchants. Nobody seems to be able to say, "Every time we put your theories into practice, things get worse. Therefore, your theories are nonsense." Or if anyone tries, they are shouted down or fobbed off with platitudes about "no pain, no gain" and "give the process time". One is inescapably reminded of medieval flagellants whipping each other in an effort to drive off the Black Death. "We've been flogging each other for days now, and people are still dying." "Heretic!" "No pain, no gain!" "Give the process time!". Good grief.

Hopefully future generations will be as appalled at our current myhtological fixations -- the fact that we elect governments, develop policies, even wage wars over "economic theory" -- as we are by the Crusades, witch-trials and the Holy Inquisition.

Educated morons are so much worse than uneducated ones :lol: . Seriously though, most intellectuals tend to be socialists except for economists.

Are you a Keynesian, then? I think Keynesianism only has followers because it's what people want to hear, if economics was as dispassionate as physics Keynes would have gone the way of Ptolemy by now.

If economics was comparable to any sort of science, then we wouldn't have "Keynsians" or "monetarists". Honestly, can we not just admit that the whole thing is a pack of lies, blind assumptions, vague generalisations and rough rules of thumb? If economics was remotely scientific, then you wouldn't get such wildly contradictory theories.

Economics is a myth, clung to with religious fervour by a post-religious society. Like religion before it, ideologues and dogmatists are going around the planet spreading misery in the name of their weird fixations. The Marxists had their turn, and now it's the Free Marketeers -- "All for One, and More for Me!". These fundamentalists have taken control of the IMF and the World Bank and are going around "deregulating" and "opening up to competition" some of the poorest countries on earth. In every single case, the results have been unarguably disastrous, as nascent industries and basic infrastructures are exposed to swarms of rapacious asset-strippers and quick-buck merchants. Nobody seems to be able to say, "Every time we put your theories into practice, things get worse. Therefore, your theories are nonsense." Or if anyone tries, they are shouted down or fobbed off with platitudes about "no pain, no gain" and "give the process time". One is inescapably reminded of medieval flagellants whipping each other in an effort to drive off the Black Death. "We've been flogging each other for days now, and people are still dying." "Heretic!" "No pain, no gain!" "Give the process time!". Good grief.

Hopefully future generations will be as appalled at our current myhtological fixations -- the fact that we elect governments, develop policies, even wage wars over "economic theory" -- as we are by the Crusades, witch-trials and the Holy Inquisition.
Do you have anything intelligent to say or are you just jacking off?

Tell me again why my understanding of basic neoclassical economics is supposed to make me sympathetic to your cause of professional tax evasion?

Do you have anything intelligent to say or are you just jacking off?

I'm sorry if I have insulted your no doubt sincerely-held belief-system. Perhaps if you explained to me how economics is scientific -- how it is that so many economists have such wildly different, indeed completely contradictory, theories -- then I might take the subject a bit more seriously. If you can't, then you might like to ask yourself why. Until you provide me with evidence to the contrary, I will maintain that economics is at best a pseudo-science, and at worst a sham and a fraud. But if you'd rather just squirt out flip insults, though, be my guest.

Tell me again why my understanding of basic neoclassical economics is supposed to make me sympathetic to your cause of professional tax evasion?
It's not. The belief that "the govt should obey the same morals as everyone else and therefore taxation is armed robbery" is. Economics can just help you understand the consequences of this. How can you perform "professional tax evasion?" That's like being a "professional avoider of robbery".
I'm sorry if I have insulted your no doubt sincerely-held belief-system. Perhaps if you explained to me how economics is scientific -- how it is that so many economists have such wildly different, indeed completely contradictory, theories -- then I might take the subject a bit more seriously. If you can't, then you might like to ask yourself why. Until you provide me with evidence to the contrary, I will maintain that economics is at best a pseudo-science, and at worst a sham and a fraud. But if you'd rather just squirt out flip insults, though, be my guest.
There're different ways of looking at economics. If you want to look at it as mathematically rigorous and governed by equations then it can only be at best an educated guess. But much economics is fairly solid. "People respond to incentives" is an obvious point, although much forgotten by left wingers. For instance, "people buy less of something as it gets more expensive" is pretty solid (although it might not be true for a suitably ingenious example). Such observations contain a lot of insight and are both useful and scientific. Economics as a science has more in common with evolutionary biology than physics in that it explains a process rather than predicts an exact numerical answer.

At least one school of though, the "Austrian school", confine themselves to such observations and are highly skeptical of mathematical modelling. They are amongst the most fiercely pro-market economists.

Disclaimer: I'm just an amateur myself and I'm running the risk of being shot down by someone who actually knows what they're talking about.

edit: damn server

Edit: Damn it again :evil:

I'm sorry if I have insulted your no doubt sincerely-held belief-system. Perhaps if you explained to me how economics is scientific -- how it is that so many economists have such wildly different, indeed completely contradictory, theories -- then I might take the subject a bit more seriously. If you can't, then you might like to ask yourself why. Until you provide me with evidence to the contrary, I will maintain that economics is at best a pseudo-science, and at worst a sham and a fraud. But if you'd rather just squirt out flip insults, though, be my guest.

Jeldred: Economics is a social science, as in it is a study of the relationships in human society. It has much in common with political science, history, sociology and similar.

Tell me again why my understanding of basic neoclassical economics is supposed to make me sympathetic to your cause of professional tax evasion?
It's not. The belief that "the govt should obey the same morals as everyone else and therefore taxation is armed robbery" is. Economics can just help you understand the consequences of this. How can you perform "professional tax evasion?" That's like being a "professional avoider of robbery".

Taxation is in no way robbery. Taxation is the fee that applies to the use of society; there is no free lunch. Taxation is also completely voluntary: Stop using society and you do not have to pay tax!

This really made me laugh:
The free market makes sure everyone gets what they earn

The Free Market makes sure people get the minimum the businesses can get away with.
Socialism is about giving people what they earn.

Tell me again why my understanding of basic neoclassical economics is supposed to make me sympathetic to your cause of professional tax evasion?
It's not. The belief that "the govt should obey the same morals as everyone else and therefore taxation is armed robbery" is. Economics can just help you understand the consequences of this. How can you perform "professional tax evasion?" That's like being a "professional avoider of robbery".

Taxation is in no way robbery. Taxation is the fee that applies to the use of society; there is no free lunch. Taxation is also completely voluntary: Stop using society and you do not have to pay tax!
I'm always surprised at how much people resist what seems to me an obvious point.

"Society" does not equal the state. I use "society" for food, cloaths and accomodation and pay for each thing as I go. It doesn't matter if I stop using govt services, they still tax me. I'm forced to pay quite literally at gun point. If you think paying tax is voluntary then try not paying. If they gave me the option of seceding I would but they don't.

The state was conceived in and maintains itself by violence. First by violently affirming it's rule and thereafter by punishing those who don't do as they're told or pay tribute.

The government does not own the things it "sells" me anyway, as it paid for them with stolen funds. Even if the government does provide services in return for tribute this is still a form of theft called "extortion".

I'm not looking for a free lunch, I'll pay for what I use. I'm just insisting the state stop having a "free" lunch at my expense.

The government ought to obey the same rules as everyone else so either it is immoral for the govt to tax people or it is moral for me to tax people. Since if I taxed people, even if I pretended to provide services in return, it would be laughed out of court as thinly disguised banditry it is clear that taxation must indeed be robbery.

Tell me again why my understanding of basic neoclassical economics is supposed to make me sympathetic to your cause of professional tax evasion?
It's not. The belief that "the govt should obey the same morals as everyone else and therefore taxation is armed robbery" is. Economics can just help you understand the consequences of this. How can you perform "professional tax evasion?" That's like being a "professional avoider of robbery".

Taxation is in no way robbery. Taxation is the fee that applies to the use of society; there is no free lunch. Taxation is also completely voluntary: Stop using society and you do not have to pay tax!
I'm always surprised at how much people resist what seems to me an obvious point.

"Society" does not equal the state. I use "society" for food, cloaths and accomodation and pay for each thing as I go. It doesn't matter if I stop using govt services, they still tax me. I'm forced to pay quite literally at gun point. If you think paying tax is voluntary then try not paying. If they gave me the option of seceding I would but they don't.

The state was conceived in and maintains itself by violence. First by violently affirming it's rule and thereafter by punishing those who don't do as they're told or pay tribute.

The government does not own the things it "sells" me anyway, as it paid for them with stolen funds. Even if the government does provide services in return for tribute this is still a form of theft called "extortion".

I'm not looking for a free lunch, I'll pay for what I use. I'm just insisting the state stop having a "free" lunch at my expense.

The government ought to obey the same rules as everyone else so either it is immoral for the govt to tax people or it is moral for me to tax people. Since if I taxed people, even if I pretended to provide services in return, it would be laughed out of court as thinly disguised banditry it is clear that taxation must indeed be robbery.

Society is not the State, but the State plays a major role in society.

Oh but you do use government services. You live on land held against foreign agression by the government's military. You drive on roads maintained by government funds. You are protected from rapists and murderers by the government's prisons and police. If you stop paying tax, you are actually robbing the government. (And if you don't use the services you are entitled to, you are doing the equivilent of paying for a 18 hole game of minigolf, playing 1 hole and pouting.)

Though if your government does put you at gunpoint for tax evasion, you live under a rather oppressive one. As far as I can tell, ours gives you a court order.

All you need to do to abstain from paying tax is emigrate.

You are quite correct Tax is robbery - It's a violation of civil rights
Whats worse is that most governments don't even spend there ill gotten gains efficiently.

Society is not the State, but the State plays a major role in society.

Oh but you do use government services. You live on land held against foreign agression by the government's military. You drive on roads maintained by government funds. You are protected from rapists and murderers by the government's prisons and police. If you stop paying tax, you are actually robbing the government. (And if you don't use the services you are entitled to, you are doing the equivilent of paying for a 18 hole game of minigolf, playing 1 hole and pouting.)

Though if your government does put you at gunpoint for tax evasion, you live under a rather oppressive one. As far as I can tell, ours gives you a court order.

All you need to do to abstain from paying tax is emigrate.
Grrrr. Damn server. If this worked last time ignore this post.

The principle I'm putting forward is that the govt should obey the same morals as everyone else. So let's say me and my mates surround your house and claim to be protecting it. Are we entitled to force you to pay for this "protection"? No. That's called a protection racket. Let's say I take some of your money against your will and build a road all around your house so that you can't get to it without crossing the road. Can I charge you for using the road? No. Of course not. I don't even own the road 'cause I paid for it with money I stole from you.

The actual minigolf analogy would be me taking your money, building a minigolf course and then forcing you to pay whatever I want for it whether you use it or not.

Try disobeying the court order and see how long it takes the men with guns to come, especially if you try to defend your legitimate property. Saying tax evasion is robbing the govt is like saying not paying protection money is robbing the Mafia. In fact, just think of the state as a bunch of armed bandits and the whole libertarian platform falls into place.

Emigration isn't the point. If govt was voluntary I'd be able to drop out *taking any land I own with me* and thus remain in my home (well, I don't personally own any land but that's not the point)

Jeldred: Economics is a social science, as in it is a study of the relationships in human society. It has much in common with political science, history, sociology and similar.

A pseudoscience, then. Or, if you want to be kinder, "not really a science at all". I wish people would treat it as such, and not use it to issue pronouncements and predictions while pretending to the authority and objectivity of genuine science (I'm a historian, btw). Economics as an interpretive, subjective set of generalisations and rules-of-thumb I can accept; economics as a fundamentalist ideology I can't.

Jeldred: Economics is a social science, as in it is a study of the relationships in human society. It has much in common with political science, history, sociology and similar.

A pseudoscience, then. Or, if you want to be kinder, "not really a science at all". I wish people would treat it as such, and not use it to issue pronouncements and predictions while pretending to the authority and objectivity of genuine science (I'm a historian, btw). Economics as an interpretive, subjective set of generalisations and rules-of-thumb I can accept; economics as a fundamentalist ideology I can't.

Spot on. I'm a physics graduate (now that was a bad decision...). The ways in which economics an actual sciences operate are very different. This isn't me being snooty about pseudo-sciences; I'd welcome more artistry and creativity in physics. It's too late for me, though.

Jeldred: Economics is a social science, as in it is a study of the relationships in human society. It has much in common with political science, history, sociology and similar.

A pseudoscience, then. Or, if you want to be kinder, "not really a science at all". I wish people would treat it as such, and not use it to issue pronouncements and predictions while pretending to the authority and objectivity of genuine science (I'm a historian, btw). Economics as an interpretive, subjective set of generalisations and rules-of-thumb I can accept; economics as a fundamentalist ideology I can't.

I agree it isn't really a true science. There are too many unknown variables in economics to call it a true science. You can't predict economic growth with any certainty for example...something unexpected could happen at any time and throw your predictions totally.

This is precisely in line with the libertarian view of property. Govt land is owned by nobody and may thus be claimed by anyone who brings it into use.

well then, off to squat the smithsonian institute with ya.

Before, when they weren't actually owners of the property, they had no incentive to improve it. Now that they have the property rights they do have incentives to improve it.

no. before, when they were constantly threatened with eviction and bulldozers, they had no reason to improve it. now that their possession of it has been recognized they no longer have to fear the old owner. the fact that the old owner was the government is neither here nor there. the same thing applies equally well to a squatted abandoned warehouse in chicago.

Having got invalid sessioned on a long reply, I'll argue this with you when we get put on the new server Libertovania. No wonder I've been adding one liners in posts lately.

And public property is owned by everybody, not nobody. That's what public property means.

Both profit and taxation are robbery.

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

There're different ways of looking at economics. If you want to look at it as mathematically rigorous and governed by equations then it can only be at best an educated guess. But much economics is fairly solid. "People respond to incentives" is an obvious point, although much forgotten by left wingers. For instance, "people buy less of something as it gets more expensive" is pretty solid (although it might not be true for a suitably ingenious example). Such observations contain a lot of insight and are both useful and scientific. Economics as a science has more in common with evolutionary biology than physics in that it explains a process rather than predicts an exact numerical answer.

At least one school of though, the "Austrian school", confine themselves to such observations and are highly skeptical of mathematical modelling. They are amongst the most fiercely pro-market economists.

Disclaimer: I'm just an amateur myself and I'm running the risk of being shot down by someone who actually knows what they're talking about.

What you seem to be classing as "economics" resembles a small bunch of axioms and vague principles that could probably be written down on the back of a couple of fag packets. The insights they provide may be useful and generally accurate, but they have more in common with Aesop's Fables than with real science. A real science has an underlying theoretical framework, and works on quantifiable data. It is measurable, and testable. "People respond to incentives": if you can quantify "respond" and "incentives", you might have the beginnings of a science. And, as you say, "people buy less of something as it gets more expensive" is only a rule of thumb. Shares in a company would seem to be an obvious counter-example. Or works of art. Or designer clothing. Or recreational drugs. Of course, all these examples have their exceptions too. In other words: you don't know until you try, because it's literally chaotic. Experience can teach you quite a bit, but ultimately a guess is as good as you're going to get.

Science begins with observations, and moves to conclusions; economics works in reverse. Economists start off with a political viewpoint, and then construct their economic theories with selective evidence to "prove" their original point of view. This is why so many economists hold radically different viewpoints. I'm afraid I am unimpressed by the Austrian School's dedication to "observation", since they cannot quantify -- or even accurately define -- what they are observing. They're right to be sceptical of mathematical modelling; but how do they arrive at their conclusions that "the free market" has all, or even some, of the "answers"?

A beautiful post, Jeldred.

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Both profit and taxation are robbery.

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

How is profit robbery? People part with their money voluntarily in exchange for something. You don't pay tax you are fined then imprisoned..

There're different ways of looking at economics. If you want to look at it as mathematically rigorous and governed by equations then it can only be at best an educated guess. But much economics is fairly solid. "People respond to incentives" is an obvious point, although much forgotten by left wingers. For instance, "people buy less of something as it gets more expensive" is pretty solid (although it might not be true for a suitably ingenious example). Such observations contain a lot of insight and are both useful and scientific. Economics as a science has more in common with evolutionary biology than physics in that it explains a process rather than predicts an exact numerical answer.

At least one school of though, the "Austrian school", confine themselves to such observations and are highly skeptical of mathematical modelling. They are amongst the most fiercely pro-market economists.

Disclaimer: I'm just an amateur myself and I'm running the risk of being shot down by someone who actually knows what they're talking about.

What you seem to be classing as "economics" resembles a small bunch of axioms and vague principles that could probably be written down on the back of a couple of fag packets. The insights they provide may be useful and generally accurate, but they have more in common with Aesop's Fables than with real science. A real science has an underlying theoretical framework, and works on quantifiable data. It is measurable, and testable. "People respond to incentives": if you can quantify "respond" and "incentives", you might have the beginnings of a science. And, as you say, "people buy less of something as it gets more expensive" is only a rule of thumb. Shares in a company would seem to be an obvious counter-example. Or works of art. Or designer clothing. Or recreational drugs. Of course, all these examples have their exceptions too. In other words: you don't know until you try, because it's literally chaotic. Experience can teach you quite a bit, but ultimately a guess is as good as you're going to get.

Science begins with observations, and moves to conclusions; economics works in reverse. Economists start off with a political viewpoint, and then construct their economic theories with selective evidence to "prove" their original point of view. This is why so many economists hold radically different viewpoints. I'm afraid I am unimpressed by the Austrian School's dedication to "observation", since they cannot quantify -- or even accurately define -- what they are observing. They're right to be sceptical of mathematical modelling; but how do they arrive at their conclusions that "the free market" has all, or even some, of the "answers"?
Well then how do you include evolutionary biology as a science but not economics? Evolutionary theory cannot make quantifiable predictions about what will evolve next. "The strongest survive" is only a rule of thumb. The point of science is observing the world and trying to guess what the underlying mechanisms are, not to reduce everything to mathematics. Not all science has to be based on the paradigm of Newtonian dynamics (this is coming from a particle physicist here) The fact is that both evolutionary theory and economics have the power to provide explaination and understanding.

The Austrian school realise this and don't try to predict but to explain. Trying to predict what the market will look like next week is like trying to predict what length kangaroos tails will be in a thousand years time. Completely pointless and impossible. However you can use economics to explain why rent fixing causes deterioration in housing in the same way you can use evolution to explain why Europeans are white and Africans black.

A beautiful post, Jeldred.

Even Noam Chumpsky has praised Adam Smith's insights.

I agree that "people respond to incentives", however the acquisition of property isn't the only incentive that people can have.
What Letila was referring to as profit being theft is not when a company sells something to a consumer, but when the company does not give all of the profit to the workers who make the product.
Furthermore, at some point, all wealth was stolen from someone. We all all essentially aiders and abetters of it.

Well then how do you include evolutionary biology as a science but not economics? Evolutionary theory cannot make quantifiable predictions about what will evolve next. "The strongest survive" is only a rule of thumb. The point of science is observing the world and trying to guess what the underlying mechanisms are, not to reduce everything to mathematics. Not all science has to be based on the paradigm of Newtonian dynamics (this is coming from a particle physicist here) The fact is that both evolutionary theory and economics have the power to provide explaination and understanding.

"The strongest survive" is, indeed, a rule of thumb. A better evolutionary rule of thumb is, "whatever works". "Survival of the fittest" is better rendered in modern English as "survival of the fit". Evolutionary biology, however, has more than just rules of thumb. It has a basic, quantifiable and demonstrable mechanism of inheritance. OK, when Darwin postulated the idea, he didn't know about genes; but we do, and we have a pretty good (and expanding) idea of how they work. They are insanely complex in their interactions, admittedly, but we know they are real, we can sequence them, show them to each other and experiment with them. We know what the underlying mechanism is, and can manipulate it physically.

The Austrian school realise this and don't try to predict but to explain. Trying to predict what the market will look like next week is like trying to predict what length kangaroos tails will be in a thousand years time. Completely pointless and impossible. However you can use economics to explain why rent fixing causes deterioration in housing in the same way you can use evolution to explain why Europeans are white and Africans black.

No, you can't. You can cite examples of where rent fixing causes deterioration in housing, and other people can cite counterexamples where it does not. If they couldn't, then there would be no argument between economists on this issue. Since there are arguments, then obviously this issue is still in dispute.

In both cases, although people can try to concoct explanations for the deterioration or lack of it, there is no hard, quantifiable evidence, no knowledge of any underlying physical mechanism. "Deterioration" is undefined and unquantified. What level of wear-and-tear counts as "deterioration"? You can't experiment, because all the circumstances change all the time -- the tenants, the lengths and terms of the leases, the location, the surrounding environment -- and the quantities are similarly unique. What if rents were fixed at a very low level? Or a very high level? How do you define "low" and "high"? What if tenants were given fixed rents over a long time? Or a short time? What counts as "long" and "short"? At best, you might be able to show that, for a certain definition, lease type and price range of rented accomodation in a given location at a given time with such-and-such a mix of tenants, local employment situation, crime rate, etc., rent fixing will (or will not) lead to an increase in landlords' repair bills. But such information will be so specialised that its application elsewhere will probably be highly questionable. And even then, there is still no underlying mechanism.

I suppose that, if sufficiently closely defined studies were made over a long enough period of time and a wide enough area -- probably across a continent, over a century or so -- you might be able to amass enough statistical information to be able to give reasonably accurate probabilities to the outcomes of such practices as specific types of rent fixing. But there will always be exceptions, and there will always be different interpretations to make. All you'll ever really get is an insight into the political preconceptions of the various economists.

Even Noam Chumpsky has praised Adam Smith's insights.

But Adam Smith was not a relentless free marketeer. He knew how people's minds worked -- or at least, how 18th-century minds worked:

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." -- Adam Smith The Wealth of Nations

Interestingly, as I was digging up this quote, I found that left-wingers see this as Smith indicating that, if left to themselves, businessmen will form cartels and rip off the public. Right-wingers, on the other hand, see this as a stinging criticism of trades unions. You pays your money, and you takes your choice. Or, to put it another way, you reach your conclusions, and then interpret your evidence. :)

I wasn't praising Adam Smith as any sort of icon. I think much of his work was flawed. I was merely pointing out that even a committed socialist recognises the value of good economics. Incidently, that quote is often taken out of context to obscure the point. Here is a bit more of that extract.

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but when they do, the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices... Though the law can not hinder people of the same trade from sometimes meeting together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies, much less to render them necessary."

It was directed against state sanctioned cartels such as operated in many industries then and many still today.

Your view on genetics is not quite accurate. On one level evolution works on genes and you apply the concepts appropriate to a chemist. On another level the appropriate concepts are such vague things as "evolutionary fitness", "environment", "intra-species competition" and evolutionary theory cannot hope to explain anything without these concepts. Precise mathematical formulae are not relevent to this sort of explaination. Note: "Survival of the fittest" is a poor way of phrasing it, the fittest are by definition the ones which survive so the statement contains no information.

Now you could claim that economics can be reduced to brain chemistry or something but any attempt to understand the real world from such first principles is doomed. The appropriate concepts to apply are "supply and demand", "profit and loss", "competition and cooperation" etc. The concepts are not mathematical. Why should everything have to be quantifiable or predictive in order to be scientific? The purpose of science is to explain the real world. The fact that there are competing explainations doesn't mean that it is pointless to try.

If I say "regularly beating a dog will cause it to become vicious" you can't formulate it mathematically, "regularly" and "vicious" are not capable of objective quantification. Nor will it be true in every case. But it is nonetheless a sensible statement which can contribute to our understanding (if it's true, maybe it isn't).

As far as I know no sensible person disputes that rent fixing below the free market price causes deterioration.

Jello Biafra: "I agree that "people respond to incentives", however the acquisition of property isn't the only incentive that people can have.
What Letila was referring to as profit being theft is not when a company sells something to a consumer, but when the company does not give all of the profit to the workers who make the product.
Furthermore, at some point, all wealth was stolen from someone. We all all essentially aiders and abetters of it."

Nobody claimed the aquisition of property is the only incentive. The Austrian economist Ludwig Von Mises has always emphasised that there is no such creature as "homo economicus". But profit incentives do operate to an extent, that is undeniable.

What Letila was referring to is the same tripe she always refers to. I keep responding to it but she never answers my objections and continues to spew the same gobshi*e. The worker traded his labour for a wage so the product of his labour belongs to the employer. No theft occured.

All wealth was stolen? How do you know any particular piece of property wasn't passed down from it's original legitimate owner? Can you prove it beyond all reasonable doubt as the law requires? Further, if you could prove this, since the original owner is long dead the property reverts to unowned status and may be justly claimed by the first person to bring it into production.

Edit: More server misery.

"I got the slow server blues.
Da doo doo de dum"

I wasn't praising Adam Smith as any sort of icon. I think much of his work was flawed. I was merely pointing out that even a committed socialist recognises the value of good economics. Incidently, that quote is often taken out of context to obscure the point. Here is a bit more of that extract.

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but when they do, the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices... Though the law can not hinder people of the same trade from sometimes meeting together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies, much less to render them necessary."

It was directed against state sanctioned cartels such as operated in many industries then and many still today.

Adam Smith should of course be viewed in his own context, absolutely. Thanks for the rest of that quote: I wasn't aware of it. I was aware that it was directed against cartels (state-sanctioned only by default -- the state didn't set them up, it just agreed not to dismantle them once they had formed, no doubt in return for a bribe. The state is the only buffer against cartels, despite its frequent involvement with them.) The "trades unions" notion is crazy, since there were no trades unions in 18th century Britain.

Your view on genetics is not quite accurate. On one level evolution works on genes and you apply the concepts appropriate to a chemist. On another level the appropriate concepts are such vague things as "evolutionary fitness", "environment", "intra-species competition" and evolutionary theory cannot hope to explain anything without these concepts. Precise mathematical formulae are not relevent to this sort of explaination. Note: "Survival of the fittest" is a poor way of phrasing it, the fittest are by definition the ones which survive so the statement contains no information.

Notions of "evolutionary fitness" are not, IMO, scientific. As you say, they are not quantifiable, nor are any theories pertaining to them testable by experiment. But -- and this is crucial -- it holds this key advantage over economics: we know and understand the mechanism by which mutations develop, and by which they are passed on to the next generation. No such physical mechanism exists in economics.

Now you could claim that economics can be reduced to brain chemistry or something but any attempt to understand the real world from such first principles is doomed. The appropriate concepts to apply are "supply and demand", "profit and loss", "competition and cooperation" etc. The concepts are not mathematical. Why should everything have to be quantifiable or predictive in order to be scientific? The purpose of science is to explain the real world. The fact that there are competing explainations doesn't mean that it is pointless to try.

Everything has to be quantifiable in order to be scientific because that's the way that science works. You have to be able to propose testable hypotheses. If you can't quantify, you can't use experimentation to discard incorrect hypotheses. You can still make sensible and frequently true general statements, though, as you illustrate below:

If I say "regularly beating a dog will cause it to become vicious" you can't formulate it mathematically, "regularly" and "vicious" are not capable of objective quantification. Nor will it be true in every case. But it is nonetheless a sensible statement which can contribute to our understanding (if it's true, maybe it isn't).

I don't deny that economics can supply some useful guidelines, aphorisms and rules of thumb. But it is not scientific, it is not a science, and economists should not pretend to an objectivity and accuracy which they do not merit. As I said before, they reach their conclusions, then they get their evidence. They are not disinterested observers: they all have points to prove and axes to grind.

As far as I know no sensible person disputes that rent fixing below the free market price causes deterioration.

I dispute it, in general terms. Whether you class me as sensible I leave up to you :) . I don't think it has been proved. There may be correlation, but is there causation? Without a mechanism, the issue must remain unresolved. To say nothing of the difficulties of defining "free market price", "deterioration", and the no doubt partial approach of the economists gathering the data. What one might class as "wear and tear" or "ageing", another might mark down as "deterioration". Further, if there is correlation, can it be modified by regulation -- for example placing statutory requirements on landlords?

Without state enforcement cartels are unstable and extremely rare on the free market. The vast majority of cartels were dismal failures which ruined their instigators until they found out they could induce legislators to introduce stifling regulations which effectively snuffed out competition. The only way to hold a monopoly on the free market it to maintain an excellent product at an excellent price. American Aluminium did this and it's CEO was jailed for 7 years (that's about a "life sentence" these days) by an anti-trust tribunal for monopolising the aluminium industry via "exploiting every new opportunity and keeping the price below competitive levels", i.e. doing a better job than anyone else could. This is the reality of govt "protection", jailing people for efficiency.

The govt cure is inevitably worse than the disease.

Furthermore, Milton Friedman after studying the effects of private monopolies, govt monopolies and govt regulation concluded that private monopolies were the least bad option, although I'm sure this was as a result of his subjective political beliefs :D

Whether you choose to call evolutionary fitness and such "scientific" of not is up to you. But such concepts are capable of great explanatory power and add to our understanding.

We know how mutations develop and we know that people make choices based on their individual values and expected outcome. The former is the basis of evolution and the latter is the basis of economics.

Objectivity is possible in economics, whether or not it is practiced by economists is another matter.

The mechanism of rent control is fairly simple. Without any possibility of charging a higher price the landlord has no incentive to improve the property. Further, since he can change the price after the tenent moves out he has every incentive not to improve the property in order to induce the tenent to vacate. Fixing the price at a level below the "market clearing price" (at which supply equals demand) means that there will be more people wanting houses than are willing to rent out (they'll build less). Thus rent control tends to lead to dilapidated housing and a shortage of housing.

Fixing the price below the market clearing value is a general mechanism applicable to any good or service. A fairly robust economic theorem. You probably make most of your everyday judgements based on less sound reasoning than this and yet you seem to be doing okay judging by the fact you're still alive after however many years. I think all economists would accept these arguments. The problems in economics arise when they try to apply concepts in ways where their validity is questionable such as Keynesian macroeconomics and there I would agree with you that they have overstepped their bounds.

Are we arguing over anything more substantial than the definition of the word "scientific" here, or are you claiming that no economic proposition is capable of being valid or useful?

Without state enforcement cartels are unstable and extremely rare on the free market. The vast majority of cartels were dismal failures which ruined their instigators until they found out they could induce legislators to introduce stifling regulations which effectively snuffed out competition. The only way to hold a monopoly on the free market it to maintain an excellent product at an excellent price. American Aluminium did this and it's CEO was jailed for 7 years (that's about a "life sentence" these days) by an anti-trust tribunal for monopolising the aluminium industry via "exploiting every new opportunity and keeping the price below competitive levels", i.e. doing a better job than anyone else could. This is the reality of govt "protection", jailing people for efficiency.

The govt cure is inevitably worse than the disease.

Furthermore, Milton Friedman after studying the effects of private monopolies, govt monopolies and govt regulation concluded that private monopolies were the least bad option, although I'm sure this was as a result of his subjective political beliefs :D

Whether you choose to call evolutionary fitness and such "scientific" of not is up to you. But such concepts are capable of great explanatory power and add to our understanding.

We know how mutations develop and we know that people make choices based on their individual values and expected outcome. The former is the basis of evolution and the latter is the basis of economics.

Objectivity is possible in economics, whether or not it is practiced by economists is another matter.

The mechanism of rent control is fairly simple. Without any possibility of charging a higher price the landlord has no incentive to improve the property. Further, since he can change the price after the tenent moves out he has every incentive not to improve the property in order to induce the tenent to vacate. Fixing the price at a level below the "market clearing price" (at which supply equals demand) means that there will be more people wanting houses than are willing to rent out (they'll build less). Thus rent control tends to lead to dilapidated housing and a shortage of housing.

Fixing the price below the market clearing value is a general mechanism applicable to any good or service. A fairly robust economic theorem. You probably make most of your everyday judgements based on less sound reasoning than this and yet you seem to be doing okay judging by the fact you're still alive after however many years. I think all economists would accept these arguments. The problems in economics arise when they try to apply concepts in ways where their validity is questionable such as Keynesian macroeconomics and there I would agree with you that they have overstepped their bounds.

Are we arguing over anything more substantial than the definition of the word "scientific" here, or are you claiming that no economic proposition is capable of being valid or useful?

Without state enforcement cartels are unstable and extremely rare on the free market. The vast majority of cartels were dismal failures which ruined their instigators until they found out they could induce legislators to introduce stifling regulations which effectively snuffed out competition. The only way to hold a monopoly on the free market it to maintain an excellent product at an excellent price. American Aluminium did this and it's CEO was jailed for 7 years (that's about a "life sentence" these days) by an anti-trust tribunal for monopolising the aluminium industry via "exploiting every new opportunity and keeping the price below competitive levels", i.e. doing a better job than anyone else could. This is the reality of govt "protection", jailing people for efficiency.

The govt cure is inevitably worse than the disease.

Furthermore, Milton Friedman after studying the effects of private monopolies, govt monopolies and govt regulation concluded that private monopolies were the least bad option, although I'm sure this was as a result of his subjective political beliefs :D

Maybe. :D Other economists will reach opposite conclusions from the same data -- no doubt due to their subjective beliefs. Like the recent assessment of the UK's economy: one group places Britain's most recent economic high-water mark in 1976. Without an objective, exterior standard, subjectivity is all that remains. You may value Friedman's opinions over others, but, without an objective standard, that is surely just opinion, not fact.

Whether you choose to call evolutionary fitness and such "scientific" of not is up to you. But such concepts are capable of great explanatory power and add to our understanding.

We know how mutations develop and we know that people make choices based on their individual values and expected outcome. The former is the basis of evolution and the latter is the basis of economics.

Objectivity is possible in economics, whether or not it is practiced by economists is another matter.

The mechanism of rent control is fairly simple. Without any possibility of charging a higher price the landlord has no incentive to improve the property. Further, since he can change the price after the tenent moves out he has every incentive not to improve the property in order to induce the tenent to vacate. Fixing the price at a level below the "market clearing price" (at which supply equals demand) means that there will be more people wanting houses than are willing to rent out (they'll build less). Thus rent control tends to lead to dilapidated housing and a shortage of housing.

Fixing the price below the market clearing value is a general mechanism applicable to any good or service. A fairly robust economic theorem. You probably make most of your everyday judgements based on less sound reasoning than this and yet you seem to be doing okay judging by the fact you're still alive after however many years. I think all economists would accept these arguments. The problems in economics arise when they try to apply concepts in ways where their validity is questionable such as Keynesian macroeconomics and there I would agree with you that they have overstepped their bounds.

Are we arguing over anything more substantial than the definition of the word "scientific" here, or are you claiming that no economic proposition is capable of being valid or useful?

A good and fair point. Probably a bit of both, if truth be told. I think my central point is the issue of objectivity. There are no universal economic standards, no universal economic constants: therefore, economics must remain subjective only. GDP is a ludicrously crude and, again, subjective measure: other measures of "happiness" and "stability" are equally subjective and may be equally as valid.

I concede that economics can be a useful tool, if its subjectivity is acknowledged. A previous poster compared it to the practice of history, and I think that's probably true: much of it -- perhaps most of it -- is open to interpretation. I'm a great believer in doubt, when it comes to social systems. I prefer not to be sure, and that's the way I like my politicians: beset by uncertainty, keeping their, and my, options open.

However, I find myself agreeing with much of what you say about the free market, despite my reservations about its literal existence. My doubts stem from concerns about human nature, and from the things some people will do for nothing more than money. If all the oil companies in the world were fully privately owned, I suspect that they would form their own, unaccountable, OPEC-analogue, a "a conspiracy against the public". Competition is good for the consumer, but private companies -- especially big ones -- hate it, and would rather stitch us up in private with a gentlemen's agreement than test themselves against it. I also can't bring myself to condemn the world's poor and vulnerable to the whims of corporations and the ministrations of charities.

Without state enforcement cartels are unstable and extremely rare on the free market. The vast majority of cartels were dismal failures which ruined their instigators until they found out they could induce legislators to introduce stifling regulations which effectively snuffed out competition. The only way to hold a monopoly on the free market it to maintain an excellent product at an excellent price. American Aluminium did this and it's CEO was jailed for 7 years (that's about a "life sentence" these days) by an anti-trust tribunal for monopolising the aluminium industry via "exploiting every new opportunity and keeping the price below competitive levels", i.e. doing a better job than anyone else could. This is the reality of govt "protection", jailing people for efficiency.



Jeez i wish I had entered this debate earlier, looks like heaps of fun. You Libertywhatsit, you seem confused about what constitutes monopolistic behaviour. Monopoly and Oligoppoly are in fact quite common and they are growing more so as corporations increasingly make more and more profit from them. Take for example, the pharmaceutical industry. Drug companies are highly active in lobbying for extension of intellectual property law in order to maintain profitablility for their products. They do so even when the prohibitive costs they impose on medicines causes very real harm to sociey (think aids in Africa and the inability of poor countries to pay for branded medicines).

BTW Jeldred - you rock.

When I said that all property was at some point stolen, to give an example, when the "colonists" came to America from Europe, there were people living here already. Those people were either killed off, or forced onto reservations. So, Libertovania, you're basically saying that if I kill you, I have the right to take your property? (Provided I bring it "into use" of course.)
What do you consider a "legitimate owner?"
Oh, incidentally, in earlier posts you referred to Nazi Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union, and China as examples of socialist states. But they're not. They're totalitarian states. Socialism does not equal totalitarianism. I could also go on about how more people starved to death under capitalism than under socialism, but that's neither here nor there.
Lastly, the workers in a company did not sell their labor, the "owner" of the company let the workers borrow the company to make a product from it.

I concede that economics can be a useful tool, if its subjectivity is acknowledged. A previous poster compared it to the practice of history, and I think that's probably true: much of it -- perhaps most of it -- is open to interpretation. I'm a great believer in doubt, when it comes to social systems. I prefer not to be sure, and that's the way I like my politicians: beset by uncertainty, keeping their, and my, options open.

However, I find myself agreeing with much of what you say about the free market, despite my reservations about its literal existence. My doubts stem from concerns about human nature, and from the things some people will do for nothing more than money. If all the oil companies in the world were fully privately owned, I suspect that they would form their own, unaccountable, OPEC-analogue, a "a conspiracy against the public". Competition is good for the consumer, but private companies -- especially big ones -- hate it, and would rather stitch us up in private with a gentlemen's agreement than test themselves against it. I also can't bring myself to condemn the world's poor and vulnerable to the whims of corporations and the ministrations of charities.
Economics is not necessarily subjective. But many people make subjective claims and call it "economics", typically this happens when mathematical equations start appearing. Much of the reasoning, e.g. increased demand => higher price (all else being equal) is objective.

I think Nelson Rockefeller tried to form a cartel of oil firms in late 19th or early 20th century but he failed because the cartel was unstable. Then he found it's cheaper to lobby govt to introduce regulations which is designed to stifle competition. I'm not sure if the details of this case are right but that's the typical pattern and it's a disease found in every part of todays economies. I really want to stress that we don't have a free market, we have a mercantilist corporate state which is precisely what Adam Smith was attacking.

If the govt intervenes in the economy it will not increase competition but decrease it. For example, the airline regulator is effectively controlled by big airlines. This is why it legislates minimum(!) fares as well as maximum ones. You and I might save every now and then if they were deregulated but it's just not worth our trouble to get it done. The airlines however have every incentive to keep it going. The gains to them are concentrated while the losses to us are dispersed. The best solution is to get rid of regulators. This might mean things are occasionally worse than an *ideal* regulator would make it, but we'll be better than we'd be with any *actual* regulator.

Deregulation would increase competition AND decrease the optimum size for businesses You'd be able to choose from lots of small companies instead of a few big ones.

As for charities, you're worried that a charity based system can't guarantee security, right? But neither can democracy. The welfare state can only exist if the majority want it and if there are enough resources around to redistribute. If the majority are willing to force themselves to give to the poor why wouldn't they do so voluntarily. (and I dispute the claim that the state redistributes from rich to poor on net)


Jeez i wish I had entered this debate earlier, looks like heaps of fun. You Libertywhatsit, you seem confused about what constitutes monopolistic behaviour. Monopoly and Oligoppoly are in fact quite common and they are growing more so as corporations increasingly make more and more profit from them. Take for example, the pharmaceutical industry. Drug companies are highly active in lobbying for extension of intellectual property law in order to maintain profitablility for their products. They do so even when the prohibitive costs they impose on medicines causes very real harm to sociey (think aids in Africa and the inability of poor countries to pay for branded medicines).

Monopoly and oligopoly are common because of, not in spite of, govt intervention. I'm totally opposed to drug patenting partly for the reason you said and I see this as a point supporting my view that govt invention in the economy shouldn't be allowed. I'm in favour of genuine free markets, not corporate rule.
When I said that all property was at some point stolen, to give an example, when the "colonists" came to America from Europe, there were people living here already. Those people were either killed off, or forced onto reservations. So, Libertovania, you're basically saying that if I kill you, I have the right to take your property? (Provided I bring it "into use" of course.)
What do you consider a "legitimate owner?"
Oh, incidentally, in earlier posts you referred to Nazi Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union, and China as examples of socialist states. But they're not. They're totalitarian states. Socialism does not equal totalitarianism. I could also go on about how more people starved to death under capitalism than under socialism, but that's neither here nor there.
Lastly, the workers in a company did not sell their labor, the "owner" of the company let the workers borrow the company to make a product from it.

I think anybody but the killer has a right to take the property if it isn't obvious who the legitimate heir is, including the killer's children. I don't think Anglo Saxons should return England to the Celts or that the Americans should return the land to Native Americans because none of todays Native Americans ever owned it, the ones who did are long gone.

I thought the only modern example of people starving to death despite there being food available was the Ukraine. The Irish famine was caused by British Imperialism and African famine is a consequence of the socialist agriculture policies of the west and insecure property rights. Most problems in the market can be traced to some govt interference which I carelessly (and admittedly mistakenly) call socialism. I've never been given a definition of socialism can you supply one?

Totalitarianism is the inevitable result of state socialism, see F.A Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom".

Of course the workers sell their labour, how can you dispute this? They trade it for a wage. This seems obvious. By the fact you put "owner" in quotation marks I assume your a hard core commie and I can't be bothered with another "is property legitimate" debate so please don't start one.

I concede that economics can be a useful tool, if its subjectivity is acknowledged. A previous poster compared it to the practice of history, and I think that's probably true: much of it -- perhaps most of it -- is open to interpretation. I'm a great believer in doubt, when it comes to social systems. I prefer not to be sure, and that's the way I like my politicians: beset by uncertainty, keeping their, and my, options open.

However, I find myself agreeing with much of what you say about the free market, despite my reservations about its literal existence. My doubts stem from concerns about human nature, and from the things some people will do for nothing more than money. If all the oil companies in the world were fully privately owned, I suspect that they would form their own, unaccountable, OPEC-analogue, a "a conspiracy against the public". Competition is good for the consumer, but private companies -- especially big ones -- hate it, and would rather stitch us up in private with a gentlemen's agreement than test themselves against it. I also can't bring myself to condemn the world's poor and vulnerable to the whims of corporations and the ministrations of charities.
Economics is not necessarily subjective. But many people make subjective claims and call it "economics", typically this happens when mathematical equations start appearing. Much of the reasoning, e.g. increased demand => higher price (all else being equal) is objective.

I think Nelson Rockefeller tried to form a cartel of oil firms in late 19th or early 20th century but he failed because the cartel was unstable. Then he found it's cheaper to lobby govt to introduce regulations which is designed to stifle competition. I'm not sure if the details of this case are right but that's the typical pattern and it's a disease found in every part of todays economies. I really want to stress that we don't have a free market, we have a mercantilist corporate state which is precisely what Adam Smith was attacking.

If the govt intervenes in the economy it will not increase competition but decrease it. For example, the airline regulator is effectively controlled by big airlines. This is why it legislates minimum(!) fares as well as maximum ones. You and I might save every now and then if they were deregulated but it's just not worth our trouble to get it done. The airlines however have every incentive to keep it going. The gains to them are concentrated while the losses to us are dispersed. The best solution is to get rid of regulators. This might mean things are occasionally worse than an *ideal* regulator would make it, but we'll be better than we'd be with any *actual* regulator.

Deregulation would increase competition AND decrease the optimum size for businesses You'd be able to choose from lots of small companies instead of a few big ones.

As for charities, you're worried that a charity based system can't guarantee security, right? But neither can democracy. The welfare state can only exist if the majority want it and if there are enough resources around to redistribute. If the majority are willing to force themselves to give to the poor why wouldn't they do so voluntarily. (and I dispute the claim that the state redistributes from rich to poor on net)


Jeez i wish I had entered this debate earlier, looks like heaps of fun. You Libertywhatsit, you seem confused about what constitutes monopolistic behaviour. Monopoly and Oligoppoly are in fact quite common and they are growing more so as corporations increasingly make more and more profit from them. Take for example, the pharmaceutical industry. Drug companies are highly active in lobbying for extension of intellectual property law in order to maintain profitablility for their products. They do so even when the prohibitive costs they impose on medicines causes very real harm to sociey (think aids in Africa and the inability of poor countries to pay for branded medicines).

Monopoly and oligopoly are common because of, not in spite of, govt intervention. I'm totally opposed to drug patenting partly for the reason you said and I see this as a point supporting my view that govt invention in the economy shouldn't be allowed. I'm in favour of genuine free markets, not corporate rule.
When I said that all property was at some point stolen, to give an example, when the "colonists" came to America from Europe, there were people living here already. Those people were either killed off, or forced onto reservations. So, Libertovania, you're basically saying that if I kill you, I have the right to take your property? (Provided I bring it "into use" of course.)
What do you consider a "legitimate owner?"
Oh, incidentally, in earlier posts you referred to Nazi Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union, and China as examples of socialist states. But they're not. They're totalitarian states. Socialism does not equal totalitarianism. I could also go on about how more people starved to death under capitalism than under socialism, but that's neither here nor there.
Lastly, the workers in a company did not sell their labor, the "owner" of the company let the workers borrow the company to make a product from it.

I think anybody but the killer has a right to take the property if it isn't obvious who the legitimate heir is, including the killer's children. I don't think Anglo Saxons should return England to the Celts or that the Americans should return the land to Native Americans because none of todays Native Americans ever owned it, the ones who did are long gone.

I thought the only modern example of people starving to death despite there being food available was the Ukraine. The Irish famine was caused by British Imperialism and African famine is a consequence of the socialist agriculture policies of the west and insecure property rights. Most problems in the market can be traced to some govt interference which I carelessly (and admittedly mistakenly) call socialism. I've never been given a definition of socialism can you supply one?

Totalitarianism is the inevitable result of state socialism, see F.A Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom".

Of course the workers sell their labour, how can you dispute this? They trade it for a wage. This seems obvious. By the fact you put "owner" in quotation marks I assume your a hard core commie and I can't be bothered with another "is property legitimate" debate so please don't start one.

Carefull tiger.... there is some stuff in this post that you attribute to me that i did not in fact post. While giving me 'ownership' of the intellectual prperty of someone else is gratifying when looked at in a 'material wellbeing calculation' (deliberate quotation marks there, take from that what you will) I cannot help but feel you are robbing someone of their satisfaction. I am prepared to forgive in this instance but Jeldred might not.

I think that all your talk of the labour -wage trade misses the point somewhat. You have still failed to address the basic issue of whether the right to hold exclusive property is valid. Libertarians seem to construe this as a case of natural law but really there is no such thing as natural law because their is no natural lawmaker. Unless you are highly religious then there is no fundamental 'thing' that establishes the right of one person to hold exclusive rights to personal property (even if you are devout - show me the passage in the bible about the right to free title) and by this i mean the right to exclude others from the use of it. Now the course of human social and economic development has demonstrated that enforcement of property rights has indeed been beneficial to the human condition in that it prompted massive technological advances and thus is supported by a untilitarian argument for the greatest good. In order for you to maintain a cohesive argument for maintaining property rights you really need to prove that it is to the greater good of the majotiry of humanity. You dont seem to be addressing this at the moment.

Thanks, capatalism. (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Third_World_US/SI_Kozol_StLouis.html)
(last time, it just so happened there where three threads where that was appropriate up at one time...)

Both profit and taxation are robbery.

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

How can profit be robbery if one voluntarily agrees to pay the price of the good or service being offered by a seller?

Both profit and taxation are robbery.

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

How can profit be robbery if one voluntarily agrees to pay the price of the good or service being offered by a seller?
Come on, try harder. You know what he's saying. It's hardly 'voluntary' to have to pay for basic needs, they are needs. I'm not saying I agree with him, but for christ sake. You know what he's saying, try harder.

Both profit and taxation are robbery.

How can profit be robbery if one voluntarily agrees to pay the price of the good or service being offered by a seller?

profit isn't the same as the price paid for a commodity.

Trotterstan essentially clarified my point for me...what is a legitimate owner? What is it that gives people the exclusive right to own property, and to restrict others from using it? (Trotterstan's words, I like them.)
Also, you claim that workers sell their labor for a wage...prove it.

Carefull tiger.... there is some stuff in this post that you attribute to me that i did not in fact post. While giving me 'ownership' of the intellectual prperty of someone else is gratifying when looked at in a 'material wellbeing calculation' (deliberate quotation marks there, take from that what you will) I cannot help but feel you are robbing someone of their satisfaction. I am prepared to forgive in this instance but Jeldred might not.

I think that all your talk of the labour -wage trade misses the point somewhat. You have still failed to address the basic issue of whether the right to hold exclusive property is valid. Libertarians seem to construe this as a case of natural law but really there is no such thing as natural law because their is no natural lawmaker. Unless you are highly religious then there is no fundamental 'thing' that establishes the right of one person to hold exclusive rights to personal property (even if you are devout - show me the passage in the bible about the right to free title) and by this i mean the right to exclude others from the use of it. Now the course of human social and economic development has demonstrated that enforcement of property rights has indeed been beneficial to the human condition in that it prompted massive technological advances and thus is supported by a untilitarian argument for the greatest good. In order for you to maintain a cohesive argument for maintaining property rights you really need to prove that it is to the greater good of the majotiry of humanity. You dont seem to be addressing this at the moment.
Oops, sorry. Apologies to all involved.

The labour/wage trade issue always causes problems for socialists. If you accept private property then the labour/wage trade makes perfect sense. If you don't accept private property then you needn't bother getting involved with this argument because trade isn't even an issue for you. It's like an atheist arguing about whether god approves of canoeing.

Speaking of atheists I am one. I don't believe in any such thing as natural law either. Ethically speaking I'm an "emotivist" which means I don't believe in the absolute metaphysical existence of "good" and "evil" and morals are effectively just emotions. "That's wrong" means effectively the same as "boo, hiss".

Utilitarianism is wrong because it inevitably means that some must be sacrificed for the good of others. Generally speaking I think this is wrong and that people are ends in themselves and not a means to some collective good.

Jello: Every worker I know works for a wage. I know you're looking for some sort of moral argument and I hope my defence of property can supply what you're looking for. There can be no such thing as proof in moral arguments, only persuasive points.

As for property, I put this on a different board last week. The first point is probably the most relevant

1./ Entitlement: Each individual should be entitled to enjoy the fruits of his own labour. By transforming natural resources individuals can justly aquire ownership over them. If I irrigate a field how can anyone justly use it contrary to my will? If I draw water from the stream who else can justly drink of it without my approval? To confiscate the fruits of another's labour against his will is to use him as an ends to your means, violating his individuality and effectively using him as a slave.

This is clearly similar to or the same as the classical "mixing of labour" justification.

2./ Productivity: Property rights allow the "invisible hand" of the market to come into play. The incentive structure of the market encourages production and innovation which allows massive expansion of wealth. The price structure serves to efficiently and easily coordinate the activities of all the economic actors. The division of labour also contributes to expanding wealth.

3./ Stewardship: Owners have an incentive to serve as good stewards over their property ensuring that natural resources are not senselessly and short sightedly plundered like fishes are and buffalo used to be.

4./ Liberty/Responsibility: Private property allows a great deal of individual freedom. Leftist critics say that it reduces freedom since you cannot use others' property but one could respond that by that argument prohibiting rape reduces liberty since you are no longer "free" to have sex with any woman you want, wheras clearly prohibiting rape increases liberty.

Let's say I wanted to sail around Britain. The resources required in order to build a sailboat (wood or fibreglass, sails etc) are scarce whether there's private property or not. In the leftist world I may be doing the community a great disservice by appropriating these resources for my own purposes and they may not allow me to use them, or may "legitimately" run off with my half built boat while I sleep. With private property though I can aquire legitimate ownership of the resources and persue my goal peacefully and without making anybody worse off.

Of course, I alone shoulder the costs of my actions so responsibility is also encouraged. Private property encourages responsibility by requiring people to face the consequences of their actions and does not allow them to live parasitically at the expense of others.

5./ Peace and tolerance: I can't remember whether it was Bastiat or Von Mises who said "when goods don't cross borders armies will". Trade encourages peaceful cooperation as opposed to violent confrontation. Economic competition replaces political (violent) competition. Tolerance is also advanced. Anybody who refuses to deal with Gays/Jews/Blacks/Catholics puts himself at a competitive disadvantage and will be less wealthy as a result. Commerce has a civilising effect on those who engage in it.

6./ Dispersal of power: In the economic sphere power is decentralised so that people have reasonable safeguards against being exploited or dominated by a single person or body.

7./ Planning: In the world of private property people can form and execute plans. They can assemble all the various resources required for their goals with reasonable assurances that those resources will not be siphoned off by someone else. In the world where everything is held in common the plumber doesn't know if someone will take his van while he's inside fixing the pipes.

So what happens if property is rejected? Examples a) pure socialism b) welfare statism

1./ a) People take what others have earned leading to feelings of being expoited and ultimately to violence. This is why the average length of 19th century "utopian" communes was 2 years.
b) People use the state to plunder each other's resources. Everyone tries to live off everyone else. The result is the state shuffles around resources with the effect that nobody is any (or much) better off (except a few favoured merchants like arms suppliers and a few bureaucrats). It's worth noting that for every govt program which redistributes from rich to poor there is one going the other way. Let me make one point which people really don't get. The welfare state DOES NOT help the poor.

2./ a) Nobody works because the benefit goes almost entirely to others so there is no incentive. Combined with the lack of coordination without price structures (this is a very important and under rated effect of market pricing) the standard of living drops to stone age levels.
b) People work less hard because half their income gets taxed. For example, I know many small business people who can't be bothered expanding because they'll keep less than half the extra if they go into the next tax bracket. This causes lost jobs and wealth. Govt services cannot coordinate without a price mechanism (for example we're running out of nurses in the UK, all govt services have long waiting lists). Govt services introduce islands of chaos into the economy which disrupt and hinder progress and ultimately peoples' wellbeing.

3./ a) Resources are plundered with no thought of tomorrow because if you don't take it now someone else will. It's why buffaloes and fishes and whales get hunted to extinction. It's why the amazon is logged without replanting. It's why American planes were overgrazed. It will happen to every single natural resource leaving us with nothing for tomorrow. Truly cutting down the trees to get the coconuts.
b) Common pool resources like fishes, hospitals and courts get over used because you don't pay for them. The big qs for hospitals, housing, courts, asylum seem like excuses for more govt action, not less. The public sector sucks more and more resources getting more and more expensive with little improvement in quality even as in the private sector things become better and more affordable.

4./ a) You can only do what the community allows you to. Although idiots like Letila (as well as more intelligent but naive people like Free Soviets) think there will be enough of everything there will be less for the above reasons so things will be very strictly rationed and you won't be able to do anything you want as long as someone else "needs" the resource more (which is always).
b) You get banned from doing things that the community pays for. Drugs, smoking, drinking get clamped down on because "society pays" for your medical bills. The govt is expected to solve "society's" problem with fat. People are forced into unsuitable schooling because "society" needs "educated" people. In short, you lose many of your liberties.

5./ a) and b) Minorities get harassed for taking "our" scarce resources. With controlled allocation of resources everyone competes with everyone else. Society becomes more partisan. The "rich" are now the enemy of the "poor". People complain about "greedy" Jews (this is how Naziism started). Immigration gets controlled. Affirmative action pits black against white, male against female, native against foreign. Anyone who competes for the same resources as you is your enemy. Socialist competition is far more destructive than free market competition.

6./ a) If power is centralised in the state you inevitably get the USSR or China. All state communist countries have oppressed their people. Even anarcho-socialists such as the Spanish anarchists murdered thousands of priests and small businessmen. Power corrupts and, perhaps even more so, power attracts the corrupt. Socialists complain about "greedy" capitalists, but how do greedy talented people get what the want in socialism? By serving consumers? No. By gaining and wielding political power.
b) The above, to a mercifully lesser extent. But corruption of govt agents is still a widely recognised problem in modern democracies. It's just nobody makes the connection that the more powerful states are relative to other parts of society, the more corrupt they are.

7./ a) You park your car while you're in the shop. When you get out it's gone. Once you walk home you find your house is full of squatters.
b) Businessmen can't make rational plans because predicting the govt is like predicting the weather. Resources get misallocated leading to depressions. The general welfare inevitably suffers.

If you made it this far I salute you. One thing I really want to make clear is that we do not live in a free market society, we live in a welfare state, example b), and the vast majority of our problems are due to too much govt interference, even as they seem to imply the need for more. Sorry for the length. :oops:

I have no objection to the length of the previous post, I found it highly enlightening. However, I am nonetheless forced to disagree.
First of all, I never said that I was against the use of private property. I have no problem with people having private property provided - and this is important - that they don't use it to exploit others.
One thing that just about everyone neglects to consider when arguing the free market theory is that the free market doesn't allow people to do whatever it is for a living that they want to do. That is an extremely powerful factor, perhaps even more so than salary expectations.
Everyone you know works for a wage, you say? Have you ever heard of worker owned co-ops?
You said that under socialism what can happen is that people view minorities as threats to resources, and thus despise them. This happens under capitalism, also. I often hear about "them damn immigrants coming to take our jobs" and things of that nature.
It seems to me that the 1800s were pretty much your version of a utopia. If I'm wrong on that, please explain to me how.

I have no objection to the length of the previous post, I found it highly enlightening. However, I am nonetheless forced to disagree.
First of all, I never said that I was against the use of private property. I have no problem with people having private property provided - and this is important - that they don't use it to exploit others.
One thing that just about everyone neglects to consider when arguing the free market theory is that the free market doesn't allow people to do whatever it is for a living that they want to do. That is an extremely powerful factor, perhaps even more so than salary expectations.
Everyone you know works for a wage, you say? Have you ever heard of worker owned co-ops?
You said that under socialism what can happen is that people view minorities as threats to resources, and thus despise them. This happens under capitalism, also. I often hear about "them damn immigrants coming to take our jobs" and things of that nature.
It seems to me that the 1800s were pretty much your version of a utopia. If I'm wrong on that, please explain to me how.
What do you view as exploitation? I'm always baffled about how doing nothing for the 3rd world is not exploitation but giving them a better job and improving their standard of living is. My view of exploitation would be confiscating the fruits of someone's labour via taxation/theft.

A free market would allow you to do whatever job you wanted, it just doesn't guarantee that anybody will choose to use your services. Why should people be forced - and note the word "forced" - to subsidise a job which very few or nobody wants? If you subsidised such people we'd have a nation of impoverished poets, musicians and porn testers. I shudder at the thought of fat models, incopetent doctors, corrupt judges and whimsical stock brokers!

Worker owned cooperatives are fine by me provided they do own them and didn't just steal them. David Friedman estimates that if every worker in America saved half their salary for 6 years they could buy out their owners. Workers owning a share of their businesses is something I'd love to see and something I think would happen in a free market today.

Most current anger at immigrants tends to be because they recieve welfare, but I admit this is a worrying prospect. Still, it is only the poor immigrants who get charged with job stealing. Nobody complains about French or Japanese immigrants. If the govt doesn't keep fcuking it up (they will, of course) globalisation could make the whole world rich in a few decades. Then there will be little incentive for mass migration. Anyway, if there are plenty of jobs (and I believe there will be after a few years of free markets) it won't matter much.

There are many aspects of the 19th century I approve of and many I don't. There was imperialism, slavery, enclosure, subjugation of women, statism and many abuses performed by capitalists. Still, these were mostly due to the govt. Even the abuses by capitalists were usually performed by the state at the request of the capitalists. Rich people can't force you to do anything without state collaboration. They can offer to pay you lots for your services and they can beg you to buy their products but on the free market the only way they can get you to work for them is by paying you more than anyone else will and the only way they can take your money is by persuading you to give them it for something you want.

Of course, the 19th century was a poor time to live compared to the 20th or 21st, but compared to the 18th it was great. For the first time ever poor people could afford enough cloathing, meat, tea, sugar, education etc, all luxuries in previous times. It was a time of rapid improvement. There were problems but these were mostly due to a population explosion, the Napoleonic wars etc, it's a minor miracle things got better at all and that miracle was due to the free market. The fact is that although things weren't great they were better than they would have been under socialism or any other system and isn't that all you can ask?

If you're interested in 19th century history I recommend "Capitalism and the Historians" by F.A. Hayek because the 19th century is often used as a stick to batter free markets with and has been grossly and unfairly misrepresented.

I view exploitation as charging someone any kind of fee for something.
You're right about the fact that the government often does collaborate with the rich and powerful, but this is because under capitalism, money is power, and those who have more money have more power. It's incredibly interesting to me that you automatically assume that a socialist government (I'm not a socialist, by the way) would be corrupt, but that in a free market, you'd have tons of benevolent business owners who don't try to manipulate the government to serve their own ends.
Your point about people being able to do what they want for a living under capitalism is a misnomer. If they aren't able to make money from it, then they aren't able to do what they want for a living - there's no living.
Furthermore, while at first there would be no demand for certain jobs, capitalism has shown us that it's quite easy to create a demand for something. Also, while the idea of a porn-tester is quite funny, I don't think that would qualify as an actual job. Certainly there has to be some kind of line drawn, otherwise you'd have professional sleepers and things of that nature.
Lastly, I do agree that people should be rewarded for their hard work. Unfortunately, if person A and person B work equally hard at the same type of job with the same education, they aren't going to be rewarded equally. Luck plays a factor in it. Yes, the hard work and good education plays a definite factor, they serve to increase the individual's chances of being rewarded.

I know this is kinda off-topic, but I wanted to throw in my ideas as for economics being a science...
It's more like medicine than anything. There are certain prescriptions you can take which will make you better. However, sometimes they will only cure the short-term symptoms, and possibly have worsened long-term effects.

I know this is kinda off-topic, but I wanted to throw in my ideas as for economics being a science...
It's more like medicine than anything. There are certain prescriptions you can take which will make you better. However, sometimes they will only cure the short-term symptoms, and possibly have worsened long-term effects.

edit: double post

I view exploitation as charging someone any kind of fee for something.
You're right about the fact that the government often does collaborate with the rich and powerful, but this is because under capitalism, money is power, and those who have more money have more power. It's incredibly interesting to me that you automatically assume that a socialist government (I'm not a socialist, by the way) would be corrupt, but that in a free market, you'd have tons of benevolent business owners who don't try to manipulate the government to serve their own ends.
Your point about people being able to do what they want for a living under capitalism is a misnomer. If they aren't able to make money from it, then they aren't able to do what they want for a living - there's no living.
Furthermore, while at first there would be no demand for certain jobs, capitalism has shown us that it's quite easy to create a demand for something. Also, while the idea of a porn-tester is quite funny, I don't think that would qualify as an actual job. Certainly there has to be some kind of line drawn, otherwise you'd have professional sleepers and things of that nature.
Lastly, I do agree that people should be rewarded for their hard work. Unfortunately, if person A and person B work equally hard at the same type of job with the same education, they aren't going to be rewarded equally. Luck plays a factor in it. Yes, the hard work and good education plays a definite factor, they serve to increase the individual's chances of being rewarded.
But both parties to a trade charge a fee. You charge me 50p for a newspaper and I charge you a newspaper for my 50p. Money is a commodity too. This means Chinese workers are exploiting capitalists by charging them for their labour. Surely this is nonsense.

A clearer example is if you have 2 cows and I have 2 bulls. Are we both exploiting each other if I swap you a bull for a cow? How can we be exploiting each other if we both voluntarily agree to trade and it improves both our situations? But then on a free market every trade is voluntary and improves both situations or it wouldn't take place.

I'm a free market anarchist. I want to get rid of the govt and replace it all by private voluntary institutions like businesses and charities. Thus there is no govt to be corrupted. Businesses can't force you to do anything without govt help.

You can do any job you want. If it doesn't make money you might need to do something else, but nobody forces you to. Why should I subsidise someone who's doing an unnecessary or unwanted job?

If it's easy to create demand for something then create a demand for your faeces and you'll be sh*tting gold. You can introduce a new product to the market and maybe persuade people to buy it but they aren't robots. If they don't want it they won't buy it. And if they do then only they suffer for their stupidity, they'll learn quickly.

Why should they be paid equally? No 2 peoples' labour is identical anyway. On the free market you get paid only what you can persuade someone to pay you. More to the point, what are you going to do if they aren't paid equally? Put the employer in jail? Does this seem like a legitimate use of violence to you? After all, bear in mind every law is a threat of violence.

"From each as he chooses to each as he is chosen". Choice and freedom are the key concepts. Each is rewarded roughly by how much he meets the demands of consumers.

Capitalism is ok, as long as it is competitive, with lots of companies trying to produce better quality products than each other. If it's just big companies trying to abuse the law, and take other companies out of the market, it's a pile of crap. This is why I don't like Microsoft and don't use their products (alternatives software is both better quality and less costly).

Capitalism is ok, as long as it is competitive, with lots of companies trying to produce better quality products than each other. If it's just big companies trying to abuse the law, and take other companies out of the market, it's a pile of crap. This is why I don't like Microsoft and don't use their products (alternatives software is both better quality and less costly).
This is why I try not to use the word "capitalism". People think that the corrupt corporate state and genuine free markets are both the same system, capitalism. I'm completely in favour of free markets but I've never heard anyone defend the corporate state, except politicians.

Money is a commodity, yes, but in capitalism it has a fixed day to day value, whereas other commodities can fluctuate depending upon the whims of the owners. (The exception to that might be anarcho-capitalism, I'm not sure how money would work there.) So while the value of the money is the same, the value of the newspaper (using your example) can change, depending upon how much the owner of the newspaper thinks the consumer wants the newspaper, thus exploiting the consumer.

Under the barter system, this is different. Neither item has a fixed value. To use your example, you wished to swap a bull for a cow. If one of the animals was defective, unable to reproduce, etc., then the trader of that animal would be exploiting the trader of the other. The only way that one person wouldn't be exploited is if somehow both of their lives were equally "enriched" by the trade, which is highly unlikely.

As far as someone wanting to do what they want to under capitalism, as I said before, they aren't able to do so if they can't make a living from it. It is irrelevent whether or not someone is forcing them to do something else. "Work for me or I'll kill you" = "Work for me or starve to death." The end result is the same - death. In both instances, the person giving the ultimatum is exploting the other's will to live. The person is being forced to work either way, whether or not it's a human being or mother nature is irrelevent.

If you want to market your feces, put it in a bag and call it "100% natural fertilizer." Lol.

I believe in direct democracy, which makes me an anarchist as well, except that I'm an anarcho-socialist whereas you (Libertovania) are an anarcho-capitalist.

What percentage of the US military budget would be required to eliminate malaria (a killer disease in many areas of the world, but rarely afflicting white capitalists)?

How many actors would have to reduce their multi-million salary by 10% in order to improve child mortality in third world countries?

How may towns and villages could have access to clean water if Bill Gates's salary for just one week was devoted to this cause?

How may children could be cured from AIDS if the drug companies sold their product at a less expensive rate?

Capitalism is based on greed, any benefit to the poor is miniscule and unintended.

Is Libertovania becoming an inactive nation, or did s/he just give up?

Is Libertovania becoming an inactive nation, or did s/he just give up?

People who have inherently negative perceptions of human nature (greed is inevitable, cooperation only happens through threat of violence etc) tend to give up at the first sign of trouble. Libertovania at least hung around a while first so perhaps he/she should be congratulated.

Technically, does any white person (or non 'Indian' person) have any right to hold land in North America?

The Natives weren't "using" it in the capitalist sense of the term, but it was still technically theirs.

If they just hadn't shared with the white-man. :evil:

who cares we took in from the indians and now its ours

who cares we took in from the indians and now its ours

who cares we took it from the indians and now its ours

who cares we took it from the indians and now its ours

And look what we've done to it.

who cares we took it from the indians and now its ours

I bet they care.