Thank God I don't live in a country that runs an economy like this slob would like it to be. A better book to read would be "The Spirit Level", it will give you a good inside to why America is in such a mess. Highest murder rate, highest drug taking, highest crime rate and everyone lives in fear. Look at economies that have more equel wealth, it's the opposite!!!
@SpaceWalkTraveller SpaceWalker: I've never been high in my life, but I recognize a basic moral principle you're too evil to acknowledge: I don't have the right to violate people's basic right to their own bodies by obstructing what they can and can't put into it. There are millions of artists who use mind altering compounds to accelerate creativity, just as there are millions of athletes you use steroids to enhance their performance.
@Imperativism Thank God I don't live in a country that runs an economy like this slob would like it to be. A better book to read would be "The Spirit Level", it will give you a good inside to why America is in such a mess. Highest murder rate, highest drug taking, highest crime rate and everyone lives in fear. Look at economies that have more equel wealth, it's the opposite!!!
Yeah sure. Except that America is NOT functioning in the way that the "slob" would like to see it function.
So for you to conflate what the "slob" says with the way America is now, is typical for a moron who doesn't know what logic is.
P.S. Drug taking is personal choice (alien concept to you) and "crime rate" means nothing because fascist governments can make ANYTHING a crime if they want to.
U.S. is not even in the TOP 30 of "highest murder rate", idiot.
For evidence of my claim that the U.S. is not even in the TOP 30 of murder rate, look for "List of countries by intentional homicide rate" on Wikipedia. The propaganda and lies idiots like SpaceWalkTraveller swallow from their masters can easily be disproven by the facts, and they should be put in their place for the mindless sheep they are.
1) As austerity policies roll out across the Western world, markets await the next shock and central bankers’ moves command the headlines, thoughts naturally turn to comparisons with the last great global meltdown. Liaquat Ahamed’s blockbuster, Lords of Finance, is undoubtedly the most engaging narrative of the run-up to the 1929 Crash to have appeared in recent years.
2) The elements that Ahamed synthesizes here are not especially novel. Like Peter Temin, in Lessons from the Great Depression (1989), and Barry Eichengreen, in Golden Fetters (1992), Ahamed traces the disequilibria of the 1920s and 30s back to the First World War. gold standard plays a central role.
3) As per Milton Friedman’s and Anna Schwartz’s account of the period in their Monetary History of the United States (1963), monetary policy is the crucial determinant: problems of international capitalist production remain distant from the action. And as in Eichengreen, again, the dysfunctional inter-war gold standard plays a central role.
In what way do von Mises and on Hayeks theoris gives us tools to analyze,for exampel: commodities, equities (stocks), residential mortgages, commercial real estate, loans, bonds), an index (e.g., interest rates, exchange rates, stock market prices, consumer price index (CPI) — inflation derivatives and such that plain vanilla economists deals with all day long?
@zsylvana you're trying to analyse human behaviour. economic analysis is a sub-set of sociological analysis. if economists could actually predict these thing, they'd become rich. Austrian economics can state the way things will work, but not specific situations, because they understand human behaviour is impossible to predict.
other economist fail the fact/value distinction (weber)
to give a feel about how unpredictable. history sometimes changes due to one person. eg.hitler, marx etc.
@conservativeco Compared to normal conversations about economics, yes, 15 minutes is quite short. Most conversations last at least 30 minutes, and that's if one party's not quite interested. At least, that's been my experience. Then there are the conventions and speakers... which you know would talk more than 15 minutes.
The tune is named Thaxted, composed by Gustav Holst as part of The Planets (Jupiter). It's best known as the music of the British patriotic hymn I Vow To Thee My Country.
Why shouldn't we raise the minimum wage to $50.00 an hour? If you can answer that rationally, then you will understand why we should not have a minimum wage.
@bcsizemore And if you answer : Why we should have a minimum wage at, let's say, 1,000 dollars per month ? Then you will understand why we should have a minimum wage.
Minimum wage means a significant amount of income, which means a significant. Therefore firms will increase their production. Then hire more people. Then more income, etc.
And here you have a key to boost the economy.
If you pay someone 1 dollar per hour, I doubt he is gonna buy much. And I doubt firms are gonna produce much.
@offal123 You're wrong. I'll explain. The only thing raising minimum wage does is transfer wealth that already exists from one sector of the economy to another. So while employees as a whole might have more money to spend, say on groceries, bills and necessities, because employers themselves have less money to spend on, say, hiring more employees, opening new outlets or investing in new businesses, the end result, then, is basically a net market benefit of zero.
@Imperativism It will stimulate economy, but it won't make people richer. And there is no contradiction - economy is not the same as wealth or quality of life.
@coturnix19 Simply saying there is no contradiction doesn't make it so there is no contradiction. You're wrong. There is. Raising minimum wage doesn't stimulate the economy. It takes money employers spend on their businesses and gives it to employees who then spend it at other people's businesses - who's prices now cost more because it's now more expensive to produce their goods. Raising minimum wage damages the economy. And that's the contradiction.
@Imperativism Actually the net benefit is negative. A raise in the floor price- the minimum wage, raises the cost per worker, and also denies the mutual benefit of low skilled workers. Otherwise potential workers lose out on oppurtunities & skills. Buisinesses are forced to stick with the status quo which now cost much more. Capital goods are forced to be lost, thus future productivity is diminished. And the list goes on and on.
Exactly the argument I used in debate with some of my loony left friends.
Should we have a minimum wage for African workers, at our rate? Will the (very great!) unemployment caused be irrelevant against the allegedly ethical benefit of allowing only expensive, high wage employment? Or should we recognise that to impose wage floors by force across territorial extents in which prices, wages, skills and production varies, is ignorant of the need for entry level labour?
Plus, the minimum wage must destroy jobs which by the reckoning of those imposing the level, are only insignificant quantities lower in remuneration than the minimum wage level. There is only a fixed amount of resource at any point in time and this stock of wealth will not increase very rapidly if unemployment is extensive and if some labour is overpriced. Therefore, recognising that limited resources apply, the minimum wage at eg £5 MUST destroy some employment at even £4.99!
This is because the minimum wage creates nothing. It can only prevent employment, it cannot raise the standard of living for workers whose actual ability to gain high wages can only be improved by exclusion of others from the labour force and increase in the capital stock. People rally against immigration but if we had no minimum wage and no forced charity for immigrants, then they could integrate into the labour force and increase production. Unionism & protectionism can only destroy.
I agree there should not be a minimum wage, but your argument doesn't go over with opponents, because they'll say 50 d/h is unnecessarily damaging, whereas a "reasonable" minimum wage is necessary for decent living conditions without taxing the employer too much. Even dumb leftists can see why 1000$ an hour is moronic, while a minimum wage of 1$ an hour is reducing someone a virtual slave. Disregarding obvious logical differences will not help convince them.
So, in other words, you favor laws that serve no purpose but to put people out of work and were initially were passed in the US (and in South Africa as it happens) in order to protect the jobs of whites being taken by blacks.
Wow. The poor is really fortunate to have a champion like you...
the interesting thing with the book is that all the crazy examples that Hazlitt uses are repeated to this day by mindless politicians, companies, unions and what have you. In 70 years, nothing has changed regarding economics.
Economics is just one giant equation. It doesn't mean it'll lead us to the right place. It just gives us structure. There's a billion more economic philosphies that will arise that we can't forsee yet. I'm just not naive enough to believe that any system will give you a perfect world 100% of the time. There are always unforseen consequences.
TsurugiOni is a nihilist. He has only tautological arguments. He is kind of like the kid in class who keeps raising his hand to make unrefutable (because they are meaningless) statements so that everybody will notice him.
Lol not actually. When I say "economics" I'm referring mostly to Capitalism. And what they teach about modern capitalism (micro/macro) is mostly equations. They do not discuss the truly humanistic side of capitalism unless you're in a board room or a VERY good college. Buddy. I'm the kid in class who asks "breakthrough" questions cuz 99% of other kid are too stupid to see these equations in real terms. I understand economics, and I understand how they teach it in big colleges.
Economics is not "just one giant equation". There are no equations required for the understanding of economics. And, in fact, "equations" are why the dimwits who do NOT understand economics do not understand it.
The only thing I propose is the philosophy of NOT knowing. You're speculating on how free markets would be based on a lifetime of experience with mixed markets. Maybe pharm companies can't exist without patent protection. Maybe MIcrosoft never got off the ground because people stole their ideas. You have to watch the system evolve from the ground up, and even then you would have to see it hundreds of times to get any real idea of what a free market woudl be like.
there's actually little evidence supporting intellectual property, and (to my knowledge) there have indeed been pharmaceuticals (not sure if they'd be the size of the companies we have today) developed. Then again, I think the government of Britain started granting funding for vaccines and stuff back in the day so that might have actually been the incentive for it.
At any rate, there have been lots of things arising without granted monopolies. Originators don't like it cus it means competition
No IP means generic copies of drugs that already exists, leading to cheap healthcare. Further investment funded by charity (like cancer is) for npf pharm companies.
It means generic copies but it also means that some people might not create new things in the first place, however I think that on the whole people would still create new things because they're still the first person to have it and are temporarily the only business that people can buy the product from.
And yes, I do love truth, and yes Austrian economics is pretty great.
And who's going to fine these mega corporations? Maybe they have their own paramilitary to deal with a weak unfunded government. Or maybe there is a private militia to deal with the problem of lack of federalized law enforcement. Yes, its ALL hypothetical. But once you take away the rules and safeguard, EVERYTHING is hypothetical. INstead of limiting yoru potential you VASTLY expanded them, and new possibilities will emerge that you haven't thought of. This is fact.
"And who's going to fine these mega corporations? Maybe they have their own paramilitary to deal with a weak unfunded government."
This imagined scenario is completely unconstitutional. Only states are allowed to have armed militia's, no private companies are allowed to have private armies.
Ever hear of Blackwater? And guess what. What the hell is a constitution if it's not ENFORCEABLE. You can say murder is illegal, but if you have one policeman in the entire country then what good is it. Every law needs to be enforceable.
Blackwater is unconstitutional, illegal, and a nightmare. Like I've been saying all along, whenever the government joins with business, it inevitably spawns horrific abominations.
There's nothing in the constitution that would stop a nuclear energy facility from being placed near a school. And guess what, without regulations, SOME WHERE, SOME PLACE, it will eventually happen if someone wants it to. The constitution also doesn't talk about limiting nuclear weapon productions either, or who can possess them. So somewhere, some time, somebody will get these too. These are facts. Without many boundaries the sky is the limit.
"There's nothing in the constitution that would stop a nuclear energy facility being placed near a school."
Again, I'll address this completely imagined scenario, since this is all you're capable of. There's nothing in the constitution preventing this, so you're right. But what you fail to understand, what you're seemingly incapable of understanding, is something called the profit motive. Why would that firm choose to open its plant near a school? Don't you think that would hurt his profits?
That's a big assumption too. How would it hurt profits? Maybe it's for supplying a small desert town with energy. Maybe the town people agreed to it because they thought it was safe. Maybe getting that facility would open new possibilites for a town. With LITTLE regulation, there is unimaginable possibilities. For billions of scenarios and potentials. And it is ignorant to think that it won't happen someplace, sometime, somewhere, as long as man exists.
All I hate is seeing people say "If we turned the markets free, we would be swimming in GOLD!!!". Well.... how do YOU know that since we've practically never had a free market to begin with? We've had big brother help / hurt companies along the way, and all of a sudden you want to release them into the wild and act like they belong in the market. You gotta let business naturally evolve, not drop some crazy alien technology in the middle of savages (weird analogy, but yah)
Again, history is very clear; the closer societies come to complete market liberalization, the more prosperous, free, and moral those societies become. Look at the Balkan nations for example, specifically the segmented nations of Yugoslavia. During the communist regime there were atrocities committed against, and by all sides. Each side claimed that their religion was moral, and that the other sides were acting selfishly. Since the fall of Yugoslavia there has been freedom and prosperity.
Really there's no point in arguing with you. If you dont' believe that absolute freedom can turn bad, then you're naive. Nuclear energy facility near a school? You seem to be completely blind to how capitalism can turn into tyranny through market domination, and ultimately control of our way of life. IF you can't even acknowledge the fact that the potential exists, then I am completely done.
Where and when did this occur? Unfortunately for your argument, there are no historical facts, whatsoever, which support your position. All of your examples are literally hypotheticals, while mine actually happened. You've done nothing but spew the typical rhetoric and propaganda of statists who don't want humanity to be free; so that they can manipulate them for their own gain.
You're talking about this hypothetical free market. And how its' hypothetically leads to the land of gold. IN my hypothetical free market, with hyptoethically NO REGULATIONS, you could hypothetically do that.
"You're talking about this hypothetical free market."
I've provided real world examples, many of them. So far, you've only been able to imagine hypothetical situations and talk about your idea of "morality." It's easy to say that "economics is not a science," or, "the free-market doesn't exist." Anyone can do that, watch: Gravity is the figment of my imagination; Capitalism will make everyone millionaires.
Maybe if we didn't have our same political structure where money and lobbying, voting, and electing is so closely tied together there would be less corruption when making regulations to benefit corporations. But you ignorantly group every single regulation into the "bad" category when really it may not even be regulations themselves thats the problem It could be our governmental structure, and a billion other reasons.
What do lobbyists have to do with deregulation? I don't understand. In real capitalism, there are no needs for lobbyists, the government is too small, too weak, to be useful to business. Listen, you're arguing with yourself. I never said that there should be NO regulations, free markets don't mean no laws whatsoever. There must be a principled legal system for which the market can freely operate within. The constitution does this beautifully.
Free markets don't exist dude. You're speculating on super prosperity on a free market. And yes, economics is a SOCIAL SCIENCE, ask any economist. And free markets pretty much only exist in open air markets in some unknown little land. No major country has a completely free market. OR else, name ONE.
Have you ever spoken to an economist? I talk to them every day. Again, you know absolutely nothing about economics, science, or history. You literally guess on everything and make up imagined scenarios. You don't get to decide what's fact, and what isn't. If you can, FOR ONCE, provide a single example to demonstrate even one of your points, then maybe this conversation could go somewhere.
Just name one completely free market major country. I bet you can't. I never said lobbyist have to do with deregulation. I said lobbyist have to do with pollitcal corruption in our society which MAKES bad regulations. I never said no laws either. Every example I"ve given has fallen well within the boundaries of the U.S. constitutionally based 100% free market And yes, I took a couple economics classes w/ discussions.
It's not fair to compare a communist regime with regulations that can protect people. You know, what if we imported all of our food from China because they gave us the lowest price for everything we ate? And we grew none of our food. Surely we could specialize into other fields and we would each have our comparative advantage against the other. Sounds like a recipe for success!
Take 1960's basketball for example. All of the coaches were racists, quite literally. Yet they all began starting black players. Why? Because they want the best of the best, they wanted to win. Business operates in the same way. Businessmen are racist up until the point it cuts into their bottom line.
You are so one sided and blind. You seem to think that NO regulation has ever benefited us. Im not saying that heavily regulation is a good thing, but I'm not denying that it could help. Your name is questfortruth, yet you can't see the simple truth that ANYTHING can be good or bad.
The worst policies we have in place today are the result from such thinking. The Federal reserve, minimum wage, social security, medicare, ect, ect. The Federal reserve creates and perpetuates the volatile boom-bust cycle. The minimum wage laws hurt the people they are supposed to help the most, namely minorities. Facts prove this, the minimum wage hikes in the 80s saw a sharp increase in black unemployment. Social security and Medicare are completely bankrupt. Medicare owes 85 trillion dollars.
I agree with EVERYTHING that you've said right here 10000%. But guess what, did I ever mention one of these policies? No, you automatically jump to these god forsaken things in your arguement, when I'm going in the total opposite direction. Maybe something like, "If you put cyanide in baby food you have to put it on the label". That's not a terrible regulation, is it? I'm not saying that you HAVE to have that regulation, the world can adapt without it, but you're talkin apple n oranges.
""If you put cyanide in baby food you have to put it on the label". That's not a terrible regulation, is it?"
Again, a completely imagined scenario. What company would ever put cyanide in their products purposely? What's the point of starting a business if you know you're going to fail. But to answer this ridiculous strawman, no; if a company is doing this they are negligent and should face severe legal penalties.
About the cyanide, no I dont think that would happen. But with 0 regulation, it's POSSIBLE that harmful untested products can harm the populace. Not that it WILL, but it CAN. You don't seem to understand that with infinite potential, there infinite possibility. You seem to think that it's a straight road, best products win, and you're marching unhalted toward victory. That won't happen in any philosophy you take to make decisions in life.
I'm all for PURE free market, or PURE mixed market. You can't turn the market free at this point in America's history. Well you could, but then we would never know the evolution of a true free market. I would love to participate in a true one, to see how life can be vastly different. No patents, no regulations. Products purely run by the people, critiqued by the people. Safety organizations run by the people. Each product able to be totally unique. It would be a great experiment.
Our minds, our products, cities, lifestyles, have all evolved along the thought process of "mixed market". And all of a sudden converting to "free" would not allow a true reflection of free market in our world. Get what I'm saying? I'm all up for free market. But people don't seem to get the "butterfly effect". I'd gladly live in a world where we can grow hemp and save rainforests. We wouldn't be supplying Mexican drug cartels with their money if weed wasn't a black market product.
It's just like affirmative action. Now I'm not giving any value judgements as to it. But is it fair that African descented people had been slaves / poor throughout time, and all of a sudden are asked to compete against people who have been historically much richer? As social conditions recreate poverty on the same level, giving them a huge disadvantage in life, how is that at all fair? Supply and demand doesn't tackle this issue. There is no heart or soul in economics. Only an equation.
Ask the African American community about affirmative action; many hate being treated like children, children unable to succeed on their own merit. It's not our responsibility to regulate morality. Whenever leaders have attempted to do so, nightmarish atrocities are the inevitable result. The road paved with good intentions is the road of tyranny. Freedom is most important, you cannot have morals if you're not free. Like I said before, charity cannot occur at the barrel of a gun.
I'm part of the AA community. You're only giving one side. If im some severely destitute African farmer, then I will take every freebie I could from those with power. Because they took away my people's power for hundreds of years, and now I'm supposed to feel like a child cuz they gave a little back? The system is stacked against me, and when there's an opportunity I take it. Many poor people think like that too.
I understand the intentions of policy. But you must look at the results of policy instead of the well written preambles. Do African Americans enjoy being treated like children who need extra help? The African Americans I know don't think so. Will some business leaders not hire a black because of his race? Most probably. But it will only come back to haunt him.
Sure, ULTIMATELY complete freedom in the market is the best route because it allows us to evolve and dynamically change. But how many roadblocks are you going to hit on the way? How many can you try to avoid? We'll always make things better, but the road zig zags.
Most serious businessmen's philosophy is like war. Peace until you have the chance to ruthlessly takeover. For a while you get great prices, maybe 60 years, but ultimately a point will come when one person dominates the market. And 99% of people will that much power find it their mission in life to hold their power and get even more. That is simply the typical malevolent progression of power without checks in balances (kings, gvt., whatever)
What about a state minimum on alcohol? What about alcohol taxes, forced cigarette taxes? Government subsidized housing? Tell me what's free about that. These things are enforced by the rule of law, which is ultimately by the use of force by law enforcement. These regulations have nothing to do with real market conditions and dynamics, hence making the market... mixed!!
I'm not sure that I understand your position. Earlier today I bought a bottle of water; to me, the bottle of water was more valuable than the 2 dollars, to the shop clerk, the 2 dollars was more valuable than the bottle of water. How was this not a free market? I think you're trying to say that the collective market (meaning all the markets combined) has never truly been completely free; but how do you arrive at the conclusion that they don't exist, or cannot exist?
Forget that last example. I'm curious as to what ur position is on the best economic policy we should have. Free markets do not exist, only in theory. We have subsidized many agricultural commodities. We're forced on a monetary unit which's value is regulated by the gvt. , and there are many floors and limits on products. Only some of the most primitive socities have had free markets at one point. Even before capitalism was mercantalism, which was still far from a free market.
What? Free markets are everywhere, whenever you buy something, without being coerced, that's a free market, that's voluntary exchange. I think you're trying to say that the aggregate market (the entire economy) is not completely free, nor has it ever been completely free. But that's the problem; history is very clear, the freer the economy, the more prosperous the people. 1880-1896 was the freest economy the world has ever seen, and it lead to the largest expansion of wealth it has ever seen.
By definition a free market is the aggregate (complete) market. If you're talking about individual transactions, that's not what the definition of a free market pertains too. A completely free market can potentially turn into a monopolistic domination of society. Just think of the Rockefellers and a couple other families controlled every aspect of society. Free market philosophy surely leads to greater prosperity though, but IMHO different degrees of freedom offer better results.
When the rockefellers, the owners of microsoft, BP, Shell, Pfizer, and a billion other companies start collaborating in a free market to help guide society towards complete domination, then how free is a society? How about when they don't have any safety standards in work because there are a billion other willing people to take ur place just so they can compete in the crazy jungle that these same company owners set up?
"When the rockefellers, the owners of microsoft, BP, Shell, Pfizer, and a billion other companies start collaborating in a free market to help guide society towards complete domination"
What evidence do you have for this? Dell competes with HP and Lenovo, and this competition assures the highest possible quality and the lowest possible prices. Rockefeller lowered the price of oil by 90%, allowing for a major industrial boom in the U.S. He created more jobs than the government ever could.
You don't need evidence, that's the natural progression of power entities once you remove restrictions (99% of times). How are businesses run in China with little oversight? You're missing the FINAL picture, you're looking too short term. Ex: IF I own the land food is grown on, the seed, the equipment, transportation, and sale centers, do you think that ultimately I"m going to want to give you the lowest cost possible? If I'm benevolent, sure, but most people aren't.
It's really impossible to say though. The rockefellers may of never existed without patent protection. Pharm companies could not of survived. The butterfly effect has to be taken into account when theoretically talking about free economies. You have to decide at what point in our history you're talking about, and only then it's a narrow minded speculation.
I'm not denying that firms come together and form cartels; this has happened many times throughout history, but ALWAYS FAIL in a free markets. The cartels begin to collapse, as specific firms break the pact in order to secure a secret advantage. OR, someone new enters the market, offers lower prices, higher wages, and dominates the competition (Henry Ford). So I don't know what you're talking about; you're describing the government, not business.
New players rarely enter businesses of economy of scale because of the high initial startup cost. And Henry Ford didn't dominate an already established market, he was the one who CREATED the market. What you're talking about is somebody with $1mil coming into today's market and trying to outcompete all of the big auto firms. All car makers do is temporarily lower prices so you can't sell your cars, and you fail nearly instantly.
"New players rarely enter businesses of economy of scale because of the high initial startup cost"
You can thank regulation for that.
"How are businesses run in China with little oversight?"
China is a fascist nation, the natural progression is democratic-socialism, socialism, communism, fascism. Sometimes nations skip the communism phase. This is the natural outcome of "public-private partnerships." When the government and business combine. This is why we NEED free markets.
What does that have to do with regulation? Regulations may have a tiny part to do with it, but the vast majority of it has to do with the fact that the business is an economy of scale. Tell me how I can outcompete Wal-Mart. Sure it can be done, but like I said, the barrier to entry is high.
"the fact that the business is an economy of scale."
Economies of scale means increasing returns to scale, y(x+)=L(x),K(x)
"Tell me how I can outcompete Wal-Mart"
You can't, they're the best at what they do. Why should the government hurt them, to help you? When you don't know what you're doing. Wal-Mart employs hundreds of thousands of people, and provides the lowest possible prices for the American consumer.
Regulation has a lot to do with it. Do you actually believe that regulations are made, for the most part, to protect the people? Or to protect the lobbyists which fund political campaigns? This kind of naievety is very dangerous. The regulations of the trucking industry for example were supported by the railroad monopolies; and why? They claimed it was to protect American jobs, but in fact they were only protecting themselves from competition.
Yes, regulations CAN help, and they can hurt. Im not some conspiracy theorist that ranks everything as government takeover plot. If you're saying all of them are bad then you are just being ignorant. Economies of scale aren't a bad thing. But don't you see the power potential when one of these businesses are nearly unstoppable? If you only buy into the fact that we all simply get lower prices and they do what they do well, then you're not seeing a whole other side of the picture.
In the 1960s, who apposed the deregulation of the trucking industry? Take a guess, it was the railroad oligopolies and General motors. They made it seem like they had the best interests of the people in mind, but it was only to protect themselves. This is why government must never be able to join up with business; It's an unholy alliance. The monopolists best friend is the politician, his worst enemy is his competitor. Reduce the power of government so businesses don't seek it's "assistance."
I agree. But you gotta understand that government intervention can be a good or a bad thing. You seem to assume "Free = good" no matter what, and that is simply naive. Sure, loansharks may fill a market demand for loans people couldn't otherwise get. But then again, the very social/ economic conditions that created that desparity may of been created on purpose. You can't just look at "supply and demand" as the ultimate rule, you gotta have a smidgeon of morality.
"You can't just look at "supply and demand" as the ultimate rule, you gotta have a smidgeon of morality."
This is like questioning the morality of physics, or astronomy. Economics is a science, it's not about your own personal opinions on morality. When you have freedom, when you allow the natural market forces to take over, the whole of society benefits. Since the market forces, by definition, includes everyone. The greatest atrocities don't occur in free systems, rather the opposite is true.
Economics is a SOCIAL science, pertaining to human choices. Physics is a physical science. Two totally different things. Human choices = morality = philosophy. Guess what. Being ruled by a king is a science too. "Do what's best for the people". OR how about mercantalism "Get more gold that you give". You seem to think that we've stumbled upon God's unfallable economic equation. When concerning decisions made by the human mind, it's ALWAYS morality in one sense or the other.
Lol and you act like scientists have the answer to the universe. We are able to send people to the moon yet we have millions of starving people around the world. All these guys do is help to understand how systems work (natural or manmade). They aren't paid to apply these understandings to real life (morality, social decisions, politics).
I noted that people were better off in the 1800's precisely to hint that the FED is involved on the side that keeps wages down and peoples incomes down. to manage the scam so its not obvious they have to rob people on all fronts: through income taxation, through inflation, AND by keeping wages low, and workers unorganized so they do not share the profits. the world have been spoon fed the capitalists view that wages should be as low as possible through media and schools yes.
Well before the American people were completely brainwashed, all sides of the political spectrum apposed central banks, especially the trade unions. The unions noticed that inflation lowered their real wages, decreasing their purchasing power. The progressives, under the guise of "helping society," instituted numerous institutions/policies which directly benefit the richest of society. In free markets, with a sound monetary system, there's much less arbitrary re-distributions of wealth.
If we had a society that glorified morality more than luxury cars capitalism could be perfect. When CEO's spent their money making soup kitchens, and people glorified qualities like that, profit would be our best friend. But when CEO's buy private islands, ship our hard grown food to private islands, hold clubs for rich people to scheme, and move our wealth there. Profit is our enemy.
Using the market economics on catastrophes??? By that reasoning we could and should increase the price of water everytime there is a fire and charge the owner of the house whos on fire. Utter inhuman madness. If the marketplace was a level playingfield of just laws without huge corps dominating and abusing their power then mom-and-pop businesses would have thrived much more. Just like it did in the 1800s and after Andrew Jackson when the US surpassed britain and Germany a hundredfold.
"By that reasoning we could and should increase the price of water everytime there is a fire and charge the owner of the house whos on fire."
Of course, this was attempted many times before by poor businessmen. What happened? Businessmen came along who did not gouge their prices based on current conditions, they were chosen by the market. And now it's a rule that engaging in such activities only hurts your business. This is why gas companies don't charge more for extremely hot or cold days.
Everything you said is a logical fallacy, and not supported by history or economic principles. More propaganda you probably heard from the government paid school teachers.
"Just like it did in the 1800s and after Andrew Jackson when the US surpassed britain and Germany a hundredfold."
I'm not sure what you're talking about here. The 18th century saw the rise of many monopolies, such as Carnegie, Rockafeller, ect, ect. It was also the greatest period of market domestic liberalization. Real incomes rose by 5% each year across the board. And there was no FED causing income disparities amongst social classes.
It's nearly impossible to hold any economic system as truth. Private ownership + high efficiency + patents can be a recipe for disaster when not coupled with morality. People take economic systems as absolute truth, when they don't realize that it's simply picking the best idea out of a bag of shit. Laws help to make any economic system one which rings with the moral conscious of society. Following a system as law is like following the grand "supercomputer" in some science fiction movie.
Private ownership is based heavily on the moral philosophies which America was founded upon. The right to own your stuff and nobody have the right to take it away. IT's foolish to think that somehow scientists are following some sort of golden equation that is separate from morality. Ultimately any system based off of some equation is following what??? A calculated procedure by which we put in inputs (data) and get outputs (decisions we make).
I agree with his analogy to music. I am a professional musician and a strong believer of Austrian economics. I just read this book, and it is amazing! The parallels between then and now are astonishing.
I wish I could get more people interested in free market economics, but it's really hard! People are either so brainwashed they won't hear it, or they don't care. It's "boring". I disagree, and I think it's important.
"Everyone carries a part of society on their shoulders", right?
Gunthaarz, you are totally ignoring many points. Competition creates incentive to make things better, and so companies constantly have to improve their products. If there is a gap in the market for a product improvement people will buy, somebody will move in. America was founded so it protected people who wanted to talk about company exploitation. It's when we DON'T have free speech, right to assembly, right to information, that leads to truest exploitation.
I agree on most of your points and I'm all for the free market. But I think when a few players get too big they have a tendency to abuse their power to dominate the market, force competition out in a million more or less subtle ways. There is a huge difference between capitalism and the free market. All saw that regulation for a level playing field was and is necessary just as laws for the 'common' man and small business or a game of football. But I completely agree with what you've written Tsur
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
what load of crap. by these standards we should allow slave labour, child lavour etc. because its "efficient". these idiots never read Adam Smith. Smih presupposed that absentee ownership did not occur in a perfect market. plus, "efficiency" of the market. the man delivering service and product want as much money as possible, as cheap, fast and unreliable a product and service as possible so he can sell you more of it.
This makes absolutely no since at all. A firm might choose to to sell a low quality product at bargain price in hopes that the masses will buy it, but if the consumers feels the product isn't worth their money they will refrain from buying it. This forces the firm to lower their prices to a level in which there is a demand for their product. If the price the consumer is willing to pay is less then the price of the capital used to produce the product the company will be forced out of business.
"Explain to me how child labor is efficient." In the third world some families are so poor that working children make the difference between the family eating and not eating. No family would send their kids to work if they had a better option. Unfortunately, when the "load of crap" crowd makes it illegal for kids to work, most of the kids become beggars, prostitutes, or starve. Not easy to understand when you live in a rich country and sip espresso but still true.
"In a study of wages and working conditions in developing countries, economists Benjamin Powell and David Skarbek found that the textile sweatshops derided by rich westerners offer higher wages and better working conditions than the alternatives in very poor countries. People in developing countries need more sweatshops rather than fewer."
Now to my question "Explain to me how child labor is efficient?" I meant in the means of production.
Gunthaarz, why do children work? Are they forced to work by these so-called "evil capitalists?" No, they worked because they wanted to survive, or help their family survive. The industrial revolution, the period you're most likely referring to, was a period of massive population growth and famine. The people had two choices, work in a factory, or die on a farm. Who are you to tell the child he should die on a farm? You're analysis is so overly-simplistic, really just childish.
I dont think so. They worked and/or died because their parents did not get a living wage. wages increased because of democratic struggle. If I can make people work for almost nothing I get huge profits, that does not mean that we all have to obey some man made law of greed, which is why we made laws for the work place and which is why there is a constant battle and struggle for the survival of such laws and negotiations on wages. But in the US they seem to have lost the ability to negotiate..
"If I can make people work for almost nothing I get huge profits, that does not mean that we all have to obey some man made law of greed,"
Complete nonsense. First of all, employers, as a rule of competition, cannot charge wages below the productivity of their workers. If they do this, than they see lower productivity and lower revenues, as their laborers are disenfranchised and unmotivated. Furthermore, this allows for competitors to come and bid away the best employers who are being underpaid
Questfortruth86. Then why does this wage - productivity theory not apply to the sweatshops of indonesia, haiti, the workers conditions in india and a thousand other places have not improved much either. subsistence wages is profitable. slavery was profitable. see "the corporation", or pilgers "new rulers of the world".
Well I'm not an expert on Indonesian labor markets; but if the Indonesian workers are being payed less than their productivity, there would have to be specific regulations in place which prevent market entry. Or the government may be corrupt, supporting cartels. It could also be the case that they're earning their equilibrium wage level adjusted for PPP. I don't really know, ask an Indonesian economist.
The clearest example of this would have to be Henry Ford's wage policies. He saw that workers were being underpaid, and that the productivity of his competitors suffered. He began paying the workers MORE than the equilibrium wage level. This bid away the best and most capable employees from his competitors, and increased worker moral. This has come to be known as efficiency wage theory. Firms are never inclined to lower the wages of their workers, as it hurts there revenues.
You also don't know what profits are in the economic sense of the word. The ability to charge more than it cost to produce the product has to do with interest more than actual profits. This is the first main problem with Marxian theory. Marx adhered to the labor theory of value, which lead him to wrong conclusions, namely the exploitation theory of labor. You say you're for markets, but you don't understand them, and are unfamiliar with basic economic principles.
Profit has nothing to do with interest, it's PROFIT. Interest is like money earned for riskily extending your credit for an amount of time. Profit is applying your capital to create valuable products or services which haven't been "exploited" yet. Two totally different principles. One is based off the fact that somebody lends u money that could otherwise be used towards making money. The other is used making something which directly makes money.
Interest is money earned over a duration of time. Profit is money earned over each unit, whether that be time or of the sale of a physical object. Dude... all economics is is the THEORY on how to manage scarce resources. IT IS MORALITY. It is the philosophy which guides our decisions on how to manage resources. Giving our resources to a church so they can help the poor is also an economic philosophy. If you don't understand this then you don't know the history of economics.
"Giving our resources to a church so they can help the poor is also an economic philosophy. If you don't understand this then you don't know the history of economics"
Giving tithe to a church can be just like socialism, an economic philosophy which essentially taxes money and uses that money to benefit those without. It is purely a decision based off of the idea that we should always increase the general social welfare. Capitalism can be used to help or hurt the world, it all depends on the people who direct the largest flows of money. Sadly I believe we need laws to protect the masses in this phony capitalism we've created in the U.S.
"Giving tithe to a church can be just like socialism"
No, if you give to the church, then by definition you are willfully contributing, this is charity. Socialism forces you to give, that's not charity. Giving someone $100 because you want to is very different than being forced to give someone $100 at the barrel of a gun.
That doesn't mean profit is a bad word, or one of "exploitation". One man's profit becomes anothers, which becomes another's. Profit allows business to dynamically change, expand, etc. It can be used to buy a private jet, which in turn profits everyone who participated in creating that jet. The only problem is when profit doesn't empower the common people in the long term, but makes em slaves.
The lender simply speculates in people's individual social/financial/psychological situation and if they fail to meet the terms of the contract they're sent to the work camp. How can your brain not comprehend this concept?
Walter Block is a-ok with this. Any sane man with a shred of moral sense would NOT be. Neither would Block the moment it got personal.
Your'e the one who brought up the issue of coercion. Not me. Now you are changing the scenario around so that there is no coercion.
"How can your brain not comprehend this concept?"
It's hard to keep up when you keep changing the parameters of the scenario. First you say that there is coercion then you say that there isn't. Well, which is it?
By the way, I actually was trying to figure out if you meant this version of the scenario before.
Now that you finally clarified this scenario (unless you decide to change it again), there really is nothing to worry about in this circumstance. Who would agree to be a slave? Perhaps a serious idiot that makes Forrest Gump look like Einstein.
You have to realize that you can't spend too much time worrying about things that are so unlikely to happen, e.g., people don't spend time worrying about whether a meteor will smash their house or whether they will spontaneously combust, etc.
In TOTAL consistency and in accordance with Walter Block's viewpoints I, as a wealthy private person (a lone shark preying on gamblers, for instance) could speculate in people's misery, confusion and economic and social duress and get them to WILLFULLY engage in an obligation that would send them to Soviet-like concentration camps. Long live Blockian "libertarianism"! And you'd have no right to interfere.
All righty doo by Walter Block.
..... see where I'm getting at? This man is a joke.
Why would that person sign up to be a slave in that instance? What possible benefit would the person under duress gain? You have to think from the point of point of said person.
If the proposed slave master in question were to make that person sign a contract while pointing a gun to his head, then such a contract would not be considered legitimate.
Like I said, you don't need a gun. Merely take advantage of the persons tough personal situation. Losing job, losing money, family relations, etc. Someone will consent, particularly if the risk is low enough.
Someone will get caught. We need an answer. We know Block's answer. I know YOUR answer - you'd say NO, because you're a sensible, moral human being with opinions and thoughts of your own, unlike a number of libertarians who parrot their gurus and have no individual thoughts.
Walter Block is a man who supports slave contracts.
He can, however, provide NO true answers to these questions:
- the contract that forced the slavery, what are its force and effects?
- did the man now slave have to be aware of what he was doing? Drunk? Mentally impaired?
Yet this genius is willing to send this slave to an environment reminiscent of the very systems he hates. Concentration camps, gulags. Part 2 in a moment:
Well, you have to think about how what he regards as legitimate slavery.
-He asserts that the person who would be a slave would only do so with a contract. Meaning that all participants would have to agree in advance. Since virtually everyone hates slavery and would therefore not sign up, there is virtually no worry of people becoming slaves. It is purely a theoretical thing.
NOT a solution. It could happen, it WOULD happen. What's your answer? You don't need a gun, **you don't need coercion**!. You merely need to find enough people who are willing to loan money and pay them back, "or else". Someone will fail. A legitimate contract. You didn't pay up, no problem, off to the slave camp you go. Fine by Walter Block. Besides, if my point is so mute why does Block even comment on it and why is he infamous for his assanine reasoning regarding it?
Tell me, Nurbsoldier. I'm an individual. I live in America, hundreds of years ago. I stand on the free soil and say "this is mine - 3000 acres of it". That's unreasonable right? So who determines that? The people around me. Those with the power and authority.
What does that remind us of... oh yeah...democracy and government.
Fact is a 15 year old kid could tear apart Block's assanine reasoning & "arguments" for supporting slave contracts - which is just embarassing.
There is no more merit to the philosophy of "can't we all just get along?" than to libertarianism. In fact, the former is atleast considered wishful thinking, whereas libertarians actually religiously believe their subjective ideas and internally widely different interpretations of their inalienable rights. The fact that libertarians among libertarians disagree on KEY ISSUES all the time tells you how subjective libertarianism is.
Force and coercion would also exist in a "liberarian" environment. how else would you control pollution?
Tell me, as a factory owner who MAY BE polluting (depending on subjective criteria) what do I care if it's a government or a private organisation that comes and tells me to stop it right now? It doesn't matter. Coercion will exist anyways. Libertarianism is one big utopian illusion, a fantasy land that totally denies human nature, immoral selfishness and basic sociology and group behavior.
From the minarchist libertarian perspective, the person who pollutes the other persons property is no different from a vandal or some other property destroyer.
The minarchist would then argue that the polluter should be punished the normal way as today.
The anarchist libertarian, by contrast, is an advocate of private courts, security and law enforcement. The methods for resolving disputes would probably be similar to how two governments today would solve such a dispute between them.
As a former student of libertarian ideology I am well aware of the respective branches and their "answers" to the many, many, many problems with this ideology.
You'v provided no answer. Not your fault -There IS no answer.
What IS pollution? Who sets the boundaries? Fact is you'll fall back on "reasonable" and similar terms often used judicially, and they're subjective. What you're telling me is that the majority rules in libertarianism... = inconsistency 101. It's man-made.
"As a former student of libertarian ideology I am well aware of the respective branches and their "answers" to the many, many, many problems with this ideology."
I doubt it.
"You'v provided no answer. Not your fault -There IS no answer. "
Do you really expect to me believe you just finished that article?
"What IS pollution? Who sets the boundaries?.."
Anything can be defined as pollution which the property owner does not want on his property. Even if it is a nice, lemony smell.
Nurb, I've known libertarian ideology for YEARS and I KNOW what "answers" there are. Trust me on this. I'm not putting focus on YOUR person, so please don't on mine. Rather than reference what the icons of this religion preach how about giving your own answers...? Just as every religious person should. Then you'll see hole after hole, flaw after flaw, inconsistency upon inconsistency.
Walter Block and the slave contracts...long live freedom from this inconsistent man.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Walter Block, you're making no sense.
You call any kind of government a crime.
Yet you call laissez-faire Ron Paul "poor". "Poor Ron Paul". From a libertarian perspective Ron Paul is a CRIMINAL.
Typical inconsistent "libertarianism", more like religion. This is from someone who holds many libertarian views, but also someone who sees that libertarianism is MAN MADE and HIGHLY inconsistent. The acquistion of property alone is so subjective it isn't even funny.
Thank God I don't live in a country that runs an economy like this slob would like it to be. A better book to read would be "The Spirit Level", it will give you a good inside to why America is in such a mess. Highest murder rate, highest drug taking, highest crime rate and everyone lives in fear. Look at economies that have more equel wealth, it's the opposite!!!
SpaceWalkTraveller 8 months ago
@SpaceWalkTraveller
Highest murder rate - that's a blatant lies.
Highest drug taking - do you include alcohol?
Highest crime rate - only in liberal cities full of minorities
coturnix19 7 months ago
@SpaceWalkTraveller SpaceWalker: I've never been high in my life, but I recognize a basic moral principle you're too evil to acknowledge: I don't have the right to violate people's basic right to their own bodies by obstructing what they can and can't put into it. There are millions of artists who use mind altering compounds to accelerate creativity, just as there are millions of athletes you use steroids to enhance their performance.
Imperativism 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Imperativism Thank God I don't live in a country that runs an economy like this slob would like it to be. A better book to read would be "The Spirit Level", it will give you a good inside to why America is in such a mess. Highest murder rate, highest drug taking, highest crime rate and everyone lives in fear. Look at economies that have more equel wealth, it's the opposite!!!
SpaceWalkTraveller 6 months ago
@SpaceWalkTraveller Or you could take Singapore (home to the freest economy on the planet) which has the lowest murder, crime and drug abuse rates
IrishLibertyLover 5 months ago
@SpaceWalkTraveller
Yeah sure. Except that America is NOT functioning in the way that the "slob" would like to see it function.
So for you to conflate what the "slob" says with the way America is now, is typical for a moron who doesn't know what logic is.
P.S. Drug taking is personal choice (alien concept to you) and "crime rate" means nothing because fascist governments can make ANYTHING a crime if they want to.
U.S. is not even in the TOP 30 of "highest murder rate", idiot.
tridentmovies 2 months ago
@tridentmovies
For evidence of my claim that the U.S. is not even in the TOP 30 of murder rate, look for "List of countries by intentional homicide rate" on Wikipedia. The propaganda and lies idiots like SpaceWalkTraveller swallow from their masters can easily be disproven by the facts, and they should be put in their place for the mindless sheep they are.
tridentmovies 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
1) As austerity policies roll out across the Western world, markets await the next shock and central bankers’ moves command the headlines, thoughts naturally turn to comparisons with the last great global meltdown. Liaquat Ahamed’s blockbuster, Lords of Finance, is undoubtedly the most engaging narrative of the run-up to the 1929 Crash to have appeared in recent years.
zsylvana 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
2) The elements that Ahamed synthesizes here are not especially novel. Like Peter Temin, in Lessons from the Great Depression (1989), and Barry Eichengreen, in Golden Fetters (1992), Ahamed traces the disequilibria of the 1920s and 30s back to the First World War. gold standard plays a central role.
zsylvana 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
3) As per Milton Friedman’s and Anna Schwartz’s account of the period in their Monetary History of the United States (1963), monetary policy is the crucial determinant: problems of international capitalist production remain distant from the action. And as in Eichengreen, again, the dysfunctional inter-war gold standard plays a central role.
zsylvana 1 year ago
In what way do von Mises and on Hayeks theoris gives us tools to analyze,for exampel: commodities, equities (stocks), residential mortgages, commercial real estate, loans, bonds), an index (e.g., interest rates, exchange rates, stock market prices, consumer price index (CPI) — inflation derivatives and such that plain vanilla economists deals with all day long?
zsylvana 1 year ago 8
@zsylvana you're trying to analyse human behaviour. economic analysis is a sub-set of sociological analysis. if economists could actually predict these thing, they'd become rich. Austrian economics can state the way things will work, but not specific situations, because they understand human behaviour is impossible to predict.
other economist fail the fact/value distinction (weber)
to give a feel about how unpredictable. history sometimes changes due to one person. eg.hitler, marx etc.
CytherLynx 11 months ago 4
15:00=short video?
conservativeco 1 year ago
@conservativeco Compared to normal conversations about economics, yes, 15 minutes is quite short. Most conversations last at least 30 minutes, and that's if one party's not quite interested. At least, that's been my experience. Then there are the conventions and speakers... which you know would talk more than 15 minutes.
fuzzyabomb 1 year ago
what is the music in the beginning?
theatchico 2 years ago 2
The tune is named Thaxted, composed by Gustav Holst as part of The Planets (Jupiter). It's best known as the music of the British patriotic hymn I Vow To Thee My Country.
AllardSteed 2 years ago 4
thanks.
theatchico 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I am not one of those liberals that think everyone deserves welfare but anyone that thinks there should be no minimum wage can fuck off.
Steve458791 2 years ago
Why shouldn't we raise the minimum wage to $50.00 an hour? If you can answer that rationally, then you will understand why we should not have a minimum wage.
bcsizemore 2 years ago 42
@bcsizemore And if you answer : Why we should have a minimum wage at, let's say, 1,000 dollars per month ? Then you will understand why we should have a minimum wage.
Minimum wage means a significant amount of income, which means a significant. Therefore firms will increase their production. Then hire more people. Then more income, etc.
And here you have a key to boost the economy.
If you pay someone 1 dollar per hour, I doubt he is gonna buy much. And I doubt firms are gonna produce much.
offal123 1 year ago
Comment removed
Imperativism 1 year ago
@offal123 You're wrong. I'll explain. The only thing raising minimum wage does is transfer wealth that already exists from one sector of the economy to another. So while employees as a whole might have more money to spend, say on groceries, bills and necessities, because employers themselves have less money to spend on, say, hiring more employees, opening new outlets or investing in new businesses, the end result, then, is basically a net market benefit of zero.
Imperativism 1 year ago
At that rate, you'd fair just as well hurling bricks through windows in the name of stimulating the economy.
Imperativism 1 year ago
@Imperativism It will stimulate economy, but it won't make people richer. And there is no contradiction - economy is not the same as wealth or quality of life.
coturnix19 7 months ago
@coturnix19 Simply saying there is no contradiction doesn't make it so there is no contradiction. You're wrong. There is. Raising minimum wage doesn't stimulate the economy. It takes money employers spend on their businesses and gives it to employees who then spend it at other people's businesses - who's prices now cost more because it's now more expensive to produce their goods. Raising minimum wage damages the economy. And that's the contradiction.
Imperativism 6 months ago
@Imperativism Actually the net benefit is negative. A raise in the floor price- the minimum wage, raises the cost per worker, and also denies the mutual benefit of low skilled workers. Otherwise potential workers lose out on oppurtunities & skills. Buisinesses are forced to stick with the status quo which now cost much more. Capital goods are forced to be lost, thus future productivity is diminished. And the list goes on and on.
swu880 10 months ago
@bcsizemore
Exactly the argument I used in debate with some of my loony left friends.
Should we have a minimum wage for African workers, at our rate? Will the (very great!) unemployment caused be irrelevant against the allegedly ethical benefit of allowing only expensive, high wage employment? Or should we recognise that to impose wage floors by force across territorial extents in which prices, wages, skills and production varies, is ignorant of the need for entry level labour?
Nintendomanwill 1 year ago
@bcsizemore
Plus, the minimum wage must destroy jobs which by the reckoning of those imposing the level, are only insignificant quantities lower in remuneration than the minimum wage level. There is only a fixed amount of resource at any point in time and this stock of wealth will not increase very rapidly if unemployment is extensive and if some labour is overpriced. Therefore, recognising that limited resources apply, the minimum wage at eg £5 MUST destroy some employment at even £4.99!
Nintendomanwill 1 year ago
This is because the minimum wage creates nothing. It can only prevent employment, it cannot raise the standard of living for workers whose actual ability to gain high wages can only be improved by exclusion of others from the labour force and increase in the capital stock. People rally against immigration but if we had no minimum wage and no forced charity for immigrants, then they could integrate into the labour force and increase production. Unionism & protectionism can only destroy.
Nintendomanwill 1 year ago
@bcsizemore
I agree there should not be a minimum wage, but your argument doesn't go over with opponents, because they'll say 50 d/h is unnecessarily damaging, whereas a "reasonable" minimum wage is necessary for decent living conditions without taxing the employer too much. Even dumb leftists can see why 1000$ an hour is moronic, while a minimum wage of 1$ an hour is reducing someone a virtual slave. Disregarding obvious logical differences will not help convince them.
tridentmovies 2 months ago
@tridentmovies The point is why is it moronic to have a $1000/hr minimum wage?
ElJefer 2 months ago in playlist Walter Block the Collection
So, in other words, you favor laws that serve no purpose but to put people out of work and were initially were passed in the US (and in South Africa as it happens) in order to protect the jobs of whites being taken by blacks.
Wow. The poor is really fortunate to have a champion like you...
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
the interesting thing with the book is that all the crazy examples that Hazlitt uses are repeated to this day by mindless politicians, companies, unions and what have you. In 70 years, nothing has changed regarding economics.
This book should be read by everyone!
gnuochtapir 2 years ago 3
i never thought i'd ever be interested in economics, all thanks to henry hazzlit!
DaveC86 2 years ago 8
I disagree, I think we all understand economics instinctively, the problems is when we start involving our own values and morals.
Visfen 2 years ago
That's funny -- the theme music is the hymn "O God, Beyond All Praising"...hmmm.
frater09 2 years ago
Economics is just one giant equation. It doesn't mean it'll lead us to the right place. It just gives us structure. There's a billion more economic philosphies that will arise that we can't forsee yet. I'm just not naive enough to believe that any system will give you a perfect world 100% of the time. There are always unforseen consequences.
TsurugiOni 2 years ago
I'm sick of dealing with your illogical, completely imagined scenarios. If you have any sort of facts to back any of your positions, I will respond.
Questfortruth86 2 years ago
TsurugiOni is a nihilist. He has only tautological arguments. He is kind of like the kid in class who keeps raising his hand to make unrefutable (because they are meaningless) statements so that everybody will notice him.
tnkaiser 2 years ago
Lol not actually. When I say "economics" I'm referring mostly to Capitalism. And what they teach about modern capitalism (micro/macro) is mostly equations. They do not discuss the truly humanistic side of capitalism unless you're in a board room or a VERY good college. Buddy. I'm the kid in class who asks "breakthrough" questions cuz 99% of other kid are too stupid to see these equations in real terms. I understand economics, and I understand how they teach it in big colleges.
TsurugiOni 2 years ago
Uh, no.
Economics is not "just one giant equation". There are no equations required for the understanding of economics. And, in fact, "equations" are why the dimwits who do NOT understand economics do not understand it.
tnkaiser 2 years ago
The only thing I propose is the philosophy of NOT knowing. You're speculating on how free markets would be based on a lifetime of experience with mixed markets. Maybe pharm companies can't exist without patent protection. Maybe MIcrosoft never got off the ground because people stole their ideas. You have to watch the system evolve from the ground up, and even then you would have to see it hundreds of times to get any real idea of what a free market woudl be like.
TsurugiOni 2 years ago
there's actually little evidence supporting intellectual property, and (to my knowledge) there have indeed been pharmaceuticals (not sure if they'd be the size of the companies we have today) developed. Then again, I think the government of Britain started granting funding for vaccines and stuff back in the day so that might have actually been the incentive for it.
At any rate, there have been lots of things arising without granted monopolies. Originators don't like it cus it means competition
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
No IP means generic copies of drugs that already exists, leading to cheap healthcare. Further investment funded by charity (like cancer is) for npf pharm companies.
win-win
Dont you just love the truth?
Austrian-Economics is like a breath of fresh air.
jebustheone 2 years ago 3
It means generic copies but it also means that some people might not create new things in the first place, however I think that on the whole people would still create new things because they're still the first person to have it and are temporarily the only business that people can buy the product from.
And yes, I do love truth, and yes Austrian economics is pretty great.
:-)
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
And who's going to fine these mega corporations? Maybe they have their own paramilitary to deal with a weak unfunded government. Or maybe there is a private militia to deal with the problem of lack of federalized law enforcement. Yes, its ALL hypothetical. But once you take away the rules and safeguard, EVERYTHING is hypothetical. INstead of limiting yoru potential you VASTLY expanded them, and new possibilities will emerge that you haven't thought of. This is fact.
TsurugiOni 2 years ago
"And who's going to fine these mega corporations? Maybe they have their own paramilitary to deal with a weak unfunded government."
This imagined scenario is completely unconstitutional. Only states are allowed to have armed militia's, no private companies are allowed to have private armies.
Questfortruth86 2 years ago
Ever hear of Blackwater? And guess what. What the hell is a constitution if it's not ENFORCEABLE. You can say murder is illegal, but if you have one policeman in the entire country then what good is it. Every law needs to be enforceable.
TsurugiOni 2 years ago
"Ever hear of Blackwater?"
Blackwater is unconstitutional, illegal, and a nightmare. Like I've been saying all along, whenever the government joins with business, it inevitably spawns horrific abominations.
Questfortruth86 2 years ago 2
There's nothing in the constitution that would stop a nuclear energy facility from being placed near a school. And guess what, without regulations, SOME WHERE, SOME PLACE, it will eventually happen if someone wants it to. The constitution also doesn't talk about limiting nuclear weapon productions either, or who can possess them. So somewhere, some time, somebody will get these too. These are facts. Without many boundaries the sky is the limit.
TsurugiOni 2 years ago
"There's nothing in the constitution that would stop a nuclear energy facility being placed near a school."
Again, I'll address this completely imagined scenario, since this is all you're capable of. There's nothing in the constitution preventing this, so you're right. But what you fail to understand, what you're seemingly incapable of understanding, is something called the profit motive. Why would that firm choose to open its plant near a school? Don't you think that would hurt his profits?
Questfortruth86 2 years ago
That's a big assumption too. How would it hurt profits? Maybe it's for supplying a small desert town with energy. Maybe the town people agreed to it because they thought it was safe. Maybe getting that facility would open new possibilites for a town. With LITTLE regulation, there is unimaginable possibilities. For billions of scenarios and potentials. And it is ignorant to think that it won't happen someplace, sometime, somewhere, as long as man exists.
TsurugiOni 2 years ago
Comment removed
Questfortruth86 2 years ago
All I hate is seeing people say "If we turned the markets free, we would be swimming in GOLD!!!". Well.... how do YOU know that since we've practically never had a free market to begin with? We've had big brother help / hurt companies along the way, and all of a sudden you want to release them into the wild and act like they belong in the market. You gotta let business naturally evolve, not drop some crazy alien technology in the middle of savages (weird analogy, but yah)
TsurugiOni 2 years ago
Again, history is very clear; the closer societies come to complete market liberalization, the more prosperous, free, and moral those societies become. Look at the Balkan nations for example, specifically the segmented nations of Yugoslavia. During the communist regime there were atrocities committed against, and by all sides. Each side claimed that their religion was moral, and that the other sides were acting selfishly. Since the fall of Yugoslavia there has been freedom and prosperity.
Questfortruth86 2 years ago
Really there's no point in arguing with you. If you dont' believe that absolute freedom can turn bad, then you're naive. Nuclear energy facility near a school? You seem to be completely blind to how capitalism can turn into tyranny through market domination, and ultimately control of our way of life. IF you can't even acknowledge the fact that the potential exists, then I am completely done.
TsurugiOni 2 years ago
"Nuclear energy facility near a school?"
Where and when did this occur? Unfortunately for your argument, there are no historical facts, whatsoever, which support your position. All of your examples are literally hypotheticals, while mine actually happened. You've done nothing but spew the typical rhetoric and propaganda of statists who don't want humanity to be free; so that they can manipulate them for their own gain.
Questfortruth86 2 years ago
You're talking about this hypothetical free market. And how its' hypothetically leads to the land of gold. IN my hypothetical free market, with hyptoethically NO REGULATIONS, you could hypothetically do that.
TsurugiOni 2 years ago
"You're talking about this hypothetical free market."
I've provided real world examples, many of them. So far, you've only been able to imagine hypothetical situations and talk about your idea of "morality." It's easy to say that "economics is not a science," or, "the free-market doesn't exist." Anyone can do that, watch: Gravity is the figment of my imagination; Capitalism will make everyone millionaires.
Questfortruth86 2 years ago
Maybe if we didn't have our same political structure where money and lobbying, voting, and electing is so closely tied together there would be less corruption when making regulations to benefit corporations. But you ignorantly group every single regulation into the "bad" category when really it may not even be regulations themselves thats the problem It could be our governmental structure, and a billion other reasons.
TsurugiOni 2 years ago
What do lobbyists have to do with deregulation? I don't understand. In real capitalism, there are no needs for lobbyists, the government is too small, too weak, to be useful to business. Listen, you're arguing with yourself. I never said that there should be NO regulations, free markets don't mean no laws whatsoever. There must be a principled legal system for which the market can freely operate within. The constitution does this beautifully.
Questfortruth86 2 years ago
Free markets don't exist dude. You're speculating on super prosperity on a free market. And yes, economics is a SOCIAL SCIENCE, ask any economist. And free markets pretty much only exist in open air markets in some unknown little land. No major country has a completely free market. OR else, name ONE.
TsurugiOni 2 years ago
"ask any economist"
Have you ever spoken to an economist? I talk to them every day. Again, you know absolutely nothing about economics, science, or history. You literally guess on everything and make up imagined scenarios. You don't get to decide what's fact, and what isn't. If you can, FOR ONCE, provide a single example to demonstrate even one of your points, then maybe this conversation could go somewhere.
Questfortruth86 2 years ago
Just name one completely free market major country. I bet you can't. I never said lobbyist have to do with deregulation. I said lobbyist have to do with pollitcal corruption in our society which MAKES bad regulations. I never said no laws either. Every example I"ve given has fallen well within the boundaries of the U.S. constitutionally based 100% free market And yes, I took a couple economics classes w/ discussions.
TsurugiOni 2 years ago
It's not fair to compare a communist regime with regulations that can protect people. You know, what if we imported all of our food from China because they gave us the lowest price for everything we ate? And we grew none of our food. Surely we could specialize into other fields and we would each have our comparative advantage against the other. Sounds like a recipe for success!
TsurugiOni 2 years ago
Take 1960's basketball for example. All of the coaches were racists, quite literally. Yet they all began starting black players. Why? Because they want the best of the best, they wanted to win. Business operates in the same way. Businessmen are racist up until the point it cuts into their bottom line.
Questfortruth86 2 years ago
You are so one sided and blind. You seem to think that NO regulation has ever benefited us. Im not saying that heavily regulation is a good thing, but I'm not denying that it could help. Your name is questfortruth, yet you can't see the simple truth that ANYTHING can be good or bad.
TsurugiOni 2 years ago
The worst policies we have in place today are the result from such thinking. The Federal reserve, minimum wage, social security, medicare, ect, ect. The Federal reserve creates and perpetuates the volatile boom-bust cycle. The minimum wage laws hurt the people they are supposed to help the most, namely minorities. Facts prove this, the minimum wage hikes in the 80s saw a sharp increase in black unemployment. Social security and Medicare are completely bankrupt. Medicare owes 85 trillion dollars.
Questfortruth86 2 years ago
I agree with EVERYTHING that you've said right here 10000%. But guess what, did I ever mention one of these policies? No, you automatically jump to these god forsaken things in your arguement, when I'm going in the total opposite direction. Maybe something like, "If you put cyanide in baby food you have to put it on the label". That's not a terrible regulation, is it? I'm not saying that you HAVE to have that regulation, the world can adapt without it, but you're talkin apple n oranges.
TsurugiOni 2 years ago
""If you put cyanide in baby food you have to put it on the label". That's not a terrible regulation, is it?"
Again, a completely imagined scenario. What company would ever put cyanide in their products purposely? What's the point of starting a business if you know you're going to fail. But to answer this ridiculous strawman, no; if a company is doing this they are negligent and should face severe legal penalties.
Questfortruth86 2 years ago
About the cyanide, no I dont think that would happen. But with 0 regulation, it's POSSIBLE that harmful untested products can harm the populace. Not that it WILL, but it CAN. You don't seem to understand that with infinite potential, there infinite possibility. You seem to think that it's a straight road, best products win, and you're marching unhalted toward victory. That won't happen in any philosophy you take to make decisions in life.
TsurugiOni 2 years ago
I'm all for PURE free market, or PURE mixed market. You can't turn the market free at this point in America's history. Well you could, but then we would never know the evolution of a true free market. I would love to participate in a true one, to see how life can be vastly different. No patents, no regulations. Products purely run by the people, critiqued by the people. Safety organizations run by the people. Each product able to be totally unique. It would be a great experiment.
TsurugiOni 2 years ago
Our minds, our products, cities, lifestyles, have all evolved along the thought process of "mixed market". And all of a sudden converting to "free" would not allow a true reflection of free market in our world. Get what I'm saying? I'm all up for free market. But people don't seem to get the "butterfly effect". I'd gladly live in a world where we can grow hemp and save rainforests. We wouldn't be supplying Mexican drug cartels with their money if weed wasn't a black market product.
TsurugiOni 2 years ago
It's just like affirmative action. Now I'm not giving any value judgements as to it. But is it fair that African descented people had been slaves / poor throughout time, and all of a sudden are asked to compete against people who have been historically much richer? As social conditions recreate poverty on the same level, giving them a huge disadvantage in life, how is that at all fair? Supply and demand doesn't tackle this issue. There is no heart or soul in economics. Only an equation.
TsurugiOni 2 years ago
Ask the African American community about affirmative action; many hate being treated like children, children unable to succeed on their own merit. It's not our responsibility to regulate morality. Whenever leaders have attempted to do so, nightmarish atrocities are the inevitable result. The road paved with good intentions is the road of tyranny. Freedom is most important, you cannot have morals if you're not free. Like I said before, charity cannot occur at the barrel of a gun.
Questfortruth86 2 years ago
I'm part of the AA community. You're only giving one side. If im some severely destitute African farmer, then I will take every freebie I could from those with power. Because they took away my people's power for hundreds of years, and now I'm supposed to feel like a child cuz they gave a little back? The system is stacked against me, and when there's an opportunity I take it. Many poor people think like that too.
TsurugiOni 2 years ago
I understand the intentions of policy. But you must look at the results of policy instead of the well written preambles. Do African Americans enjoy being treated like children who need extra help? The African Americans I know don't think so. Will some business leaders not hire a black because of his race? Most probably. But it will only come back to haunt him.
Questfortruth86 2 years ago
Sure, ULTIMATELY complete freedom in the market is the best route because it allows us to evolve and dynamically change. But how many roadblocks are you going to hit on the way? How many can you try to avoid? We'll always make things better, but the road zig zags.
TsurugiOni 2 years ago
Most serious businessmen's philosophy is like war. Peace until you have the chance to ruthlessly takeover. For a while you get great prices, maybe 60 years, but ultimately a point will come when one person dominates the market. And 99% of people will that much power find it their mission in life to hold their power and get even more. That is simply the typical malevolent progression of power without checks in balances (kings, gvt., whatever)
TsurugiOni 2 years ago
What about a state minimum on alcohol? What about alcohol taxes, forced cigarette taxes? Government subsidized housing? Tell me what's free about that. These things are enforced by the rule of law, which is ultimately by the use of force by law enforcement. These regulations have nothing to do with real market conditions and dynamics, hence making the market... mixed!!
TsurugiOni 2 years ago
I just bought a bottle of water with a pint of piss. The flask of piss was worth more than the bottle of water and 4 gallons of poop.
AnonymousWhitePerson 2 years ago
What?
Questfortruth86 2 years ago
I want to drown in a pool of my own blood and feces.
AnonymousWhitePerson 2 years ago
There is no such thing as the 'Free Market.'
AnonymousWhitePerson 2 years ago
I'm not sure that I understand your position. Earlier today I bought a bottle of water; to me, the bottle of water was more valuable than the 2 dollars, to the shop clerk, the 2 dollars was more valuable than the bottle of water. How was this not a free market? I think you're trying to say that the collective market (meaning all the markets combined) has never truly been completely free; but how do you arrive at the conclusion that they don't exist, or cannot exist?
Questfortruth86 2 years ago
Oh, you mean the Flea Market...
Long live the Flea Market Economy!
AnonymousWhitePerson 2 years ago
Forget that last example. I'm curious as to what ur position is on the best economic policy we should have. Free markets do not exist, only in theory. We have subsidized many agricultural commodities. We're forced on a monetary unit which's value is regulated by the gvt. , and there are many floors and limits on products. Only some of the most primitive socities have had free markets at one point. Even before capitalism was mercantalism, which was still far from a free market.
TsurugiOni 2 years ago
What? Free markets are everywhere, whenever you buy something, without being coerced, that's a free market, that's voluntary exchange. I think you're trying to say that the aggregate market (the entire economy) is not completely free, nor has it ever been completely free. But that's the problem; history is very clear, the freer the economy, the more prosperous the people. 1880-1896 was the freest economy the world has ever seen, and it lead to the largest expansion of wealth it has ever seen.
Questfortruth86 2 years ago
By definition a free market is the aggregate (complete) market. If you're talking about individual transactions, that's not what the definition of a free market pertains too. A completely free market can potentially turn into a monopolistic domination of society. Just think of the Rockefellers and a couple other families controlled every aspect of society. Free market philosophy surely leads to greater prosperity though, but IMHO different degrees of freedom offer better results.
TsurugiOni 2 years ago
When the rockefellers, the owners of microsoft, BP, Shell, Pfizer, and a billion other companies start collaborating in a free market to help guide society towards complete domination, then how free is a society? How about when they don't have any safety standards in work because there are a billion other willing people to take ur place just so they can compete in the crazy jungle that these same company owners set up?
TsurugiOni 2 years ago
"When the rockefellers, the owners of microsoft, BP, Shell, Pfizer, and a billion other companies start collaborating in a free market to help guide society towards complete domination"
What evidence do you have for this? Dell competes with HP and Lenovo, and this competition assures the highest possible quality and the lowest possible prices. Rockefeller lowered the price of oil by 90%, allowing for a major industrial boom in the U.S. He created more jobs than the government ever could.
Questfortruth86 2 years ago
You don't need evidence, that's the natural progression of power entities once you remove restrictions (99% of times). How are businesses run in China with little oversight? You're missing the FINAL picture, you're looking too short term. Ex: IF I own the land food is grown on, the seed, the equipment, transportation, and sale centers, do you think that ultimately I"m going to want to give you the lowest cost possible? If I'm benevolent, sure, but most people aren't.
TsurugiOni 2 years ago
It's really impossible to say though. The rockefellers may of never existed without patent protection. Pharm companies could not of survived. The butterfly effect has to be taken into account when theoretically talking about free economies. You have to decide at what point in our history you're talking about, and only then it's a narrow minded speculation.
TsurugiOni 2 years ago
I'm not denying that firms come together and form cartels; this has happened many times throughout history, but ALWAYS FAIL in a free markets. The cartels begin to collapse, as specific firms break the pact in order to secure a secret advantage. OR, someone new enters the market, offers lower prices, higher wages, and dominates the competition (Henry Ford). So I don't know what you're talking about; you're describing the government, not business.
Questfortruth86 2 years ago
New players rarely enter businesses of economy of scale because of the high initial startup cost. And Henry Ford didn't dominate an already established market, he was the one who CREATED the market. What you're talking about is somebody with $1mil coming into today's market and trying to outcompete all of the big auto firms. All car makers do is temporarily lower prices so you can't sell your cars, and you fail nearly instantly.
TsurugiOni 2 years ago
"New players rarely enter businesses of economy of scale because of the high initial startup cost"
You can thank regulation for that.
"How are businesses run in China with little oversight?"
China is a fascist nation, the natural progression is democratic-socialism, socialism, communism, fascism. Sometimes nations skip the communism phase. This is the natural outcome of "public-private partnerships." When the government and business combine. This is why we NEED free markets.
Questfortruth86 2 years ago
What does that have to do with regulation? Regulations may have a tiny part to do with it, but the vast majority of it has to do with the fact that the business is an economy of scale. Tell me how I can outcompete Wal-Mart. Sure it can be done, but like I said, the barrier to entry is high.
TsurugiOni 2 years ago
"the fact that the business is an economy of scale."
Economies of scale means increasing returns to scale, y(x+)=L(x),K(x)
"Tell me how I can outcompete Wal-Mart"
You can't, they're the best at what they do. Why should the government hurt them, to help you? When you don't know what you're doing. Wal-Mart employs hundreds of thousands of people, and provides the lowest possible prices for the American consumer.
Questfortruth86 2 years ago
"Regulations may have a tiny part to do with it,"
Regulation has a lot to do with it. Do you actually believe that regulations are made, for the most part, to protect the people? Or to protect the lobbyists which fund political campaigns? This kind of naievety is very dangerous. The regulations of the trucking industry for example were supported by the railroad monopolies; and why? They claimed it was to protect American jobs, but in fact they were only protecting themselves from competition.
Questfortruth86 2 years ago
Yes, regulations CAN help, and they can hurt. Im not some conspiracy theorist that ranks everything as government takeover plot. If you're saying all of them are bad then you are just being ignorant. Economies of scale aren't a bad thing. But don't you see the power potential when one of these businesses are nearly unstoppable? If you only buy into the fact that we all simply get lower prices and they do what they do well, then you're not seeing a whole other side of the picture.
TsurugiOni 2 years ago
In the 1960s, who apposed the deregulation of the trucking industry? Take a guess, it was the railroad oligopolies and General motors. They made it seem like they had the best interests of the people in mind, but it was only to protect themselves. This is why government must never be able to join up with business; It's an unholy alliance. The monopolists best friend is the politician, his worst enemy is his competitor. Reduce the power of government so businesses don't seek it's "assistance."
Questfortruth86 2 years ago
I agree. But you gotta understand that government intervention can be a good or a bad thing. You seem to assume "Free = good" no matter what, and that is simply naive. Sure, loansharks may fill a market demand for loans people couldn't otherwise get. But then again, the very social/ economic conditions that created that desparity may of been created on purpose. You can't just look at "supply and demand" as the ultimate rule, you gotta have a smidgeon of morality.
TsurugiOni 2 years ago
"You can't just look at "supply and demand" as the ultimate rule, you gotta have a smidgeon of morality."
This is like questioning the morality of physics, or astronomy. Economics is a science, it's not about your own personal opinions on morality. When you have freedom, when you allow the natural market forces to take over, the whole of society benefits. Since the market forces, by definition, includes everyone. The greatest atrocities don't occur in free systems, rather the opposite is true.
Questfortruth86 2 years ago
Economics is a SOCIAL science, pertaining to human choices. Physics is a physical science. Two totally different things. Human choices = morality = philosophy. Guess what. Being ruled by a king is a science too. "Do what's best for the people". OR how about mercantalism "Get more gold that you give". You seem to think that we've stumbled upon God's unfallable economic equation. When concerning decisions made by the human mind, it's ALWAYS morality in one sense or the other.
TsurugiOni 2 years ago
Lol and you act like scientists have the answer to the universe. We are able to send people to the moon yet we have millions of starving people around the world. All these guys do is help to understand how systems work (natural or manmade). They aren't paid to apply these understandings to real life (morality, social decisions, politics).
TsurugiOni 2 years ago
I noted that people were better off in the 1800's precisely to hint that the FED is involved on the side that keeps wages down and peoples incomes down. to manage the scam so its not obvious they have to rob people on all fronts: through income taxation, through inflation, AND by keeping wages low, and workers unorganized so they do not share the profits. the world have been spoon fed the capitalists view that wages should be as low as possible through media and schools yes.
gunthaarz 2 years ago
Well before the American people were completely brainwashed, all sides of the political spectrum apposed central banks, especially the trade unions. The unions noticed that inflation lowered their real wages, decreasing their purchasing power. The progressives, under the guise of "helping society," instituted numerous institutions/policies which directly benefit the richest of society. In free markets, with a sound monetary system, there's much less arbitrary re-distributions of wealth.
Questfortruth86 2 years ago
If we had a society that glorified morality more than luxury cars capitalism could be perfect. When CEO's spent their money making soup kitchens, and people glorified qualities like that, profit would be our best friend. But when CEO's buy private islands, ship our hard grown food to private islands, hold clubs for rich people to scheme, and move our wealth there. Profit is our enemy.
TsurugiOni 2 years ago
Using the market economics on catastrophes??? By that reasoning we could and should increase the price of water everytime there is a fire and charge the owner of the house whos on fire. Utter inhuman madness. If the marketplace was a level playingfield of just laws without huge corps dominating and abusing their power then mom-and-pop businesses would have thrived much more. Just like it did in the 1800s and after Andrew Jackson when the US surpassed britain and Germany a hundredfold.
gunthaarz 2 years ago
"By that reasoning we could and should increase the price of water everytime there is a fire and charge the owner of the house whos on fire."
Of course, this was attempted many times before by poor businessmen. What happened? Businessmen came along who did not gouge their prices based on current conditions, they were chosen by the market. And now it's a rule that engaging in such activities only hurts your business. This is why gas companies don't charge more for extremely hot or cold days.
Questfortruth86 2 years ago
Everything you said is a logical fallacy, and not supported by history or economic principles. More propaganda you probably heard from the government paid school teachers.
Questfortruth86 2 years ago
"Just like it did in the 1800s and after Andrew Jackson when the US surpassed britain and Germany a hundredfold."
I'm not sure what you're talking about here. The 18th century saw the rise of many monopolies, such as Carnegie, Rockafeller, ect, ect. It was also the greatest period of market domestic liberalization. Real incomes rose by 5% each year across the board. And there was no FED causing income disparities amongst social classes.
Questfortruth86 2 years ago
It's nearly impossible to hold any economic system as truth. Private ownership + high efficiency + patents can be a recipe for disaster when not coupled with morality. People take economic systems as absolute truth, when they don't realize that it's simply picking the best idea out of a bag of shit. Laws help to make any economic system one which rings with the moral conscious of society. Following a system as law is like following the grand "supercomputer" in some science fiction movie.
TsurugiOni 2 years ago
"Private ownership + high efficiency + patents can be a recipe for disaster when not coupled with morality."
No one cares about your notion of morality, especially scientists.
Questfortruth86 2 years ago
Private ownership is based heavily on the moral philosophies which America was founded upon. The right to own your stuff and nobody have the right to take it away. IT's foolish to think that somehow scientists are following some sort of golden equation that is separate from morality. Ultimately any system based off of some equation is following what??? A calculated procedure by which we put in inputs (data) and get outputs (decisions we make).
TsurugiOni 2 years ago
i dont like math can i still be a economics major? what can u do with this degree
MacPr0xnxx0 2 years ago
I agree with his analogy to music. I am a professional musician and a strong believer of Austrian economics. I just read this book, and it is amazing! The parallels between then and now are astonishing.
I wish I could get more people interested in free market economics, but it's really hard! People are either so brainwashed they won't hear it, or they don't care. It's "boring". I disagree, and I think it's important.
"Everyone carries a part of society on their shoulders", right?
Kevin17761984 2 years ago 9
Gunthaarz, you are totally ignoring many points. Competition creates incentive to make things better, and so companies constantly have to improve their products. If there is a gap in the market for a product improvement people will buy, somebody will move in. America was founded so it protected people who wanted to talk about company exploitation. It's when we DON'T have free speech, right to assembly, right to information, that leads to truest exploitation.
TsurugiOni 2 years ago 6
I agree on most of your points and I'm all for the free market. But I think when a few players get too big they have a tendency to abuse their power to dominate the market, force competition out in a million more or less subtle ways. There is a huge difference between capitalism and the free market. All saw that regulation for a level playing field was and is necessary just as laws for the 'common' man and small business or a game of football. But I completely agree with what you've written Tsur
gunthaarz 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
what load of crap. by these standards we should allow slave labour, child lavour etc. because its "efficient". these idiots never read Adam Smith. Smih presupposed that absentee ownership did not occur in a perfect market. plus, "efficiency" of the market. the man delivering service and product want as much money as possible, as cheap, fast and unreliable a product and service as possible so he can sell you more of it.
gunthaarz 3 years ago
This makes absolutely no since at all. A firm might choose to to sell a low quality product at bargain price in hopes that the masses will buy it, but if the consumers feels the product isn't worth their money they will refrain from buying it. This forces the firm to lower their prices to a level in which there is a demand for their product. If the price the consumer is willing to pay is less then the price of the capital used to produce the product the company will be forced out of business.
socialdtk 2 years ago 3
what load of crap. by these standards we should allow slave labour, child lavour etc. because its "efficient".
Explain to me how child labor is efficient.
socialdtk 2 years ago
"Explain to me how child labor is efficient." In the third world some families are so poor that working children make the difference between the family eating and not eating. No family would send their kids to work if they had a better option. Unfortunately, when the "load of crap" crowd makes it illegal for kids to work, most of the kids become beggars, prostitutes, or starve. Not easy to understand when you live in a rich country and sip espresso but still true.
cdsilber 2 years ago 2
Ad Homs aside, you basically proved my point.
"In a study of wages and working conditions in developing countries, economists Benjamin Powell and David Skarbek found that the textile sweatshops derided by rich westerners offer higher wages and better working conditions than the alternatives in very poor countries. People in developing countries need more sweatshops rather than fewer."
Now to my question "Explain to me how child labor is efficient?" I meant in the means of production.
socialdtk 2 years ago
Comment removed
imperialcrypt 2 years ago
Its cheaper for the employer and the child would only take a job if they needed it. Capitalism is against slavery because in capitalism
To take life is Murder
To take liberty is Slavery and
To take property is theft. No-one owns your life, your liberty or property. The governments job is to protect people.
Scoforever 2 years ago
Gunthaarz, why do children work? Are they forced to work by these so-called "evil capitalists?" No, they worked because they wanted to survive, or help their family survive. The industrial revolution, the period you're most likely referring to, was a period of massive population growth and famine. The people had two choices, work in a factory, or die on a farm. Who are you to tell the child he should die on a farm? You're analysis is so overly-simplistic, really just childish.
Questfortruth86 2 years ago
I dont think so. They worked and/or died because their parents did not get a living wage. wages increased because of democratic struggle. If I can make people work for almost nothing I get huge profits, that does not mean that we all have to obey some man made law of greed, which is why we made laws for the work place and which is why there is a constant battle and struggle for the survival of such laws and negotiations on wages. But in the US they seem to have lost the ability to negotiate..
gunthaarz 2 years ago
"If I can make people work for almost nothing I get huge profits, that does not mean that we all have to obey some man made law of greed,"
Complete nonsense. First of all, employers, as a rule of competition, cannot charge wages below the productivity of their workers. If they do this, than they see lower productivity and lower revenues, as their laborers are disenfranchised and unmotivated. Furthermore, this allows for competitors to come and bid away the best employers who are being underpaid
Questfortruth86 2 years ago
Questfortruth86. Then why does this wage - productivity theory not apply to the sweatshops of indonesia, haiti, the workers conditions in india and a thousand other places have not improved much either. subsistence wages is profitable. slavery was profitable. see "the corporation", or pilgers "new rulers of the world".
gunthaarz 2 years ago
Well I'm not an expert on Indonesian labor markets; but if the Indonesian workers are being payed less than their productivity, there would have to be specific regulations in place which prevent market entry. Or the government may be corrupt, supporting cartels. It could also be the case that they're earning their equilibrium wage level adjusted for PPP. I don't really know, ask an Indonesian economist.
Questfortruth86 2 years ago
The clearest example of this would have to be Henry Ford's wage policies. He saw that workers were being underpaid, and that the productivity of his competitors suffered. He began paying the workers MORE than the equilibrium wage level. This bid away the best and most capable employees from his competitors, and increased worker moral. This has come to be known as efficiency wage theory. Firms are never inclined to lower the wages of their workers, as it hurts there revenues.
Questfortruth86 2 years ago
You also don't know what profits are in the economic sense of the word. The ability to charge more than it cost to produce the product has to do with interest more than actual profits. This is the first main problem with Marxian theory. Marx adhered to the labor theory of value, which lead him to wrong conclusions, namely the exploitation theory of labor. You say you're for markets, but you don't understand them, and are unfamiliar with basic economic principles.
Questfortruth86 2 years ago
Profit has nothing to do with interest, it's PROFIT. Interest is like money earned for riskily extending your credit for an amount of time. Profit is applying your capital to create valuable products or services which haven't been "exploited" yet. Two totally different principles. One is based off the fact that somebody lends u money that could otherwise be used towards making money. The other is used making something which directly makes money.
TsurugiOni 2 years ago
"Profit has nothing to do with interest, it's PROFIT."
No, stop guessing, do some research.
"Interest is like money earned for riskily extending your credit for an amount of time."
This is wrong, but interest does have to do with time.
Questfortruth86 2 years ago
Interest is money earned over a duration of time. Profit is money earned over each unit, whether that be time or of the sale of a physical object. Dude... all economics is is the THEORY on how to manage scarce resources. IT IS MORALITY. It is the philosophy which guides our decisions on how to manage resources. Giving our resources to a church so they can help the poor is also an economic philosophy. If you don't understand this then you don't know the history of economics.
TsurugiOni 2 years ago
"Giving our resources to a church so they can help the poor is also an economic philosophy. If you don't understand this then you don't know the history of economics"
What...? You seem very, confused.
Questfortruth86 2 years ago
Giving tithe to a church can be just like socialism, an economic philosophy which essentially taxes money and uses that money to benefit those without. It is purely a decision based off of the idea that we should always increase the general social welfare. Capitalism can be used to help or hurt the world, it all depends on the people who direct the largest flows of money. Sadly I believe we need laws to protect the masses in this phony capitalism we've created in the U.S.
TsurugiOni 2 years ago
"Giving tithe to a church can be just like socialism"
No, if you give to the church, then by definition you are willfully contributing, this is charity. Socialism forces you to give, that's not charity. Giving someone $100 because you want to is very different than being forced to give someone $100 at the barrel of a gun.
Questfortruth86 2 years ago
That doesn't mean profit is a bad word, or one of "exploitation". One man's profit becomes anothers, which becomes another's. Profit allows business to dynamically change, expand, etc. It can be used to buy a private jet, which in turn profits everyone who participated in creating that jet. The only problem is when profit doesn't empower the common people in the long term, but makes em slaves.
TsurugiOni 2 years ago
You can think of this as a continuation of the comment conversation here: mises (dot) org/Community/forums/t/6204.aspx
nurbSoldier 3 years ago
Nurb, you're misunderstanding everything.
The contract IS legitimate.
There is NO coercion.
No FORCE.
The lender simply speculates in people's individual social/financial/psychological situation and if they fail to meet the terms of the contract they're sent to the work camp. How can your brain not comprehend this concept?
Walter Block is a-ok with this. Any sane man with a shred of moral sense would NOT be. Neither would Block the moment it got personal.
ProjectSWOLENESS 3 years ago
Your'e the one who brought up the issue of coercion. Not me. Now you are changing the scenario around so that there is no coercion.
"How can your brain not comprehend this concept?"
It's hard to keep up when you keep changing the parameters of the scenario. First you say that there is coercion then you say that there isn't. Well, which is it?
By the way, I actually was trying to figure out if you meant this version of the scenario before.
nurbSoldier 3 years ago
Now that you finally clarified this scenario (unless you decide to change it again), there really is nothing to worry about in this circumstance. Who would agree to be a slave? Perhaps a serious idiot that makes Forrest Gump look like Einstein.
You have to realize that you can't spend too much time worrying about things that are so unlikely to happen, e.g., people don't spend time worrying about whether a meteor will smash their house or whether they will spontaneously combust, etc.
nurbSoldier 3 years ago
In TOTAL consistency and in accordance with Walter Block's viewpoints I, as a wealthy private person (a lone shark preying on gamblers, for instance) could speculate in people's misery, confusion and economic and social duress and get them to WILLFULLY engage in an obligation that would send them to Soviet-like concentration camps. Long live Blockian "libertarianism"! And you'd have no right to interfere.
All righty doo by Walter Block.
..... see where I'm getting at? This man is a joke.
ProjectSWOLENESS 3 years ago
Why would that person sign up to be a slave in that instance? What possible benefit would the person under duress gain? You have to think from the point of point of said person.
nurbSoldier 3 years ago
If the proposed slave master in question were to make that person sign a contract while pointing a gun to his head, then such a contract would not be considered legitimate.
nurbSoldier 3 years ago
Like I said, you don't need a gun. Merely take advantage of the persons tough personal situation. Losing job, losing money, family relations, etc. Someone will consent, particularly if the risk is low enough.
Someone will get caught. We need an answer. We know Block's answer. I know YOUR answer - you'd say NO, because you're a sensible, moral human being with opinions and thoughts of your own, unlike a number of libertarians who parrot their gurus and have no individual thoughts.
ProjectSWOLENESS 3 years ago
Walter Block is a man who supports slave contracts.
He can, however, provide NO true answers to these questions:
- the contract that forced the slavery, what are its force and effects?
- did the man now slave have to be aware of what he was doing? Drunk? Mentally impaired?
Yet this genius is willing to send this slave to an environment reminiscent of the very systems he hates. Concentration camps, gulags. Part 2 in a moment:
ProjectSWOLENESS 3 years ago
Well, you have to think about how what he regards as legitimate slavery.
-He asserts that the person who would be a slave would only do so with a contract. Meaning that all participants would have to agree in advance. Since virtually everyone hates slavery and would therefore not sign up, there is virtually no worry of people becoming slaves. It is purely a theoretical thing.
nurbSoldier 3 years ago
NOT a solution. It could happen, it WOULD happen. What's your answer? You don't need a gun, **you don't need coercion**!. You merely need to find enough people who are willing to loan money and pay them back, "or else". Someone will fail. A legitimate contract. You didn't pay up, no problem, off to the slave camp you go. Fine by Walter Block. Besides, if my point is so mute why does Block even comment on it and why is he infamous for his assanine reasoning regarding it?
ProjectSWOLENESS 3 years ago
"NOT a solution. It could happen, it WOULD happen. What's your answer?"
In such a circumstance, the slave is under the moral right to run away, get other people to rescue him and various other abolitionist tactics.
Such a circumstance would be the initiation of force by the proposed slave master.
"You don't need a gun, **you don't need coercion**!"
Well of course not just a gun, it could be a knife, baseball bat, grenade, etc. The threat of violence renders any such contract illegitimate.
nurbSoldier 3 years ago
"You merely need to find enough people who are willing to loan money and pay them back, "or else"."
such a contract would not be legitimate, as it can imply the use of violence
"You didn't pay up, no problem, off to the slave camp you go."
In this scenario, would the person in question have already agreed to slavery upon failure to pay back loans?
nurbSoldier 3 years ago
"such a contract would not be legitimate, as it can imply the use of violence"
100% nonsense. Libertarianism in its pure, Blockian form would allow consent to grave torture.
"In this scenario, would the person in question have already agreed to slavery upon failure to pay back loans? "
OBVIOUSLY x 10000000000.
ProjectSWOLENESS 3 years ago
Tell me, Nurbsoldier. I'm an individual. I live in America, hundreds of years ago. I stand on the free soil and say "this is mine - 3000 acres of it". That's unreasonable right? So who determines that? The people around me. Those with the power and authority.
What does that remind us of... oh yeah...democracy and government.
Fact is a 15 year old kid could tear apart Block's assanine reasoning & "arguments" for supporting slave contracts - which is just embarassing.
ProjectSWOLENESS 3 years ago
There is no more merit to the philosophy of "can't we all just get along?" than to libertarianism. In fact, the former is atleast considered wishful thinking, whereas libertarians actually religiously believe their subjective ideas and internally widely different interpretations of their inalienable rights. The fact that libertarians among libertarians disagree on KEY ISSUES all the time tells you how subjective libertarianism is.
ProjectSWOLENESS 3 years ago
Force and coercion would also exist in a "liberarian" environment. how else would you control pollution?
Tell me, as a factory owner who MAY BE polluting (depending on subjective criteria) what do I care if it's a government or a private organisation that comes and tells me to stop it right now? It doesn't matter. Coercion will exist anyways. Libertarianism is one big utopian illusion, a fantasy land that totally denies human nature, immoral selfishness and basic sociology and group behavior.
ProjectSWOLENESS 3 years ago
From the minarchist libertarian perspective, the person who pollutes the other persons property is no different from a vandal or some other property destroyer.
The minarchist would then argue that the polluter should be punished the normal way as today.
The anarchist libertarian, by contrast, is an advocate of private courts, security and law enforcement. The methods for resolving disputes would probably be similar to how two governments today would solve such a dispute between them.
nurbSoldier 3 years ago
As a former student of libertarian ideology I am well aware of the respective branches and their "answers" to the many, many, many problems with this ideology.
You'v provided no answer. Not your fault -There IS no answer.
What IS pollution? Who sets the boundaries? Fact is you'll fall back on "reasonable" and similar terms often used judicially, and they're subjective. What you're telling me is that the majority rules in libertarianism... = inconsistency 101. It's man-made.
It's utopia.
ProjectSWOLENESS 3 years ago
"As a former student of libertarian ideology I am well aware of the respective branches and their "answers" to the many, many, many problems with this ideology."
I doubt it.
"You'v provided no answer. Not your fault -There IS no answer. "
Do you really expect to me believe you just finished that article?
"What IS pollution? Who sets the boundaries?.."
Anything can be defined as pollution which the property owner does not want on his property. Even if it is a nice, lemony smell.
nurbSoldier 3 years ago
Nurb, I've known libertarian ideology for YEARS and I KNOW what "answers" there are. Trust me on this. I'm not putting focus on YOUR person, so please don't on mine. Rather than reference what the icons of this religion preach how about giving your own answers...? Just as every religious person should. Then you'll see hole after hole, flaw after flaw, inconsistency upon inconsistency.
Walter Block and the slave contracts...long live freedom from this inconsistent man.
ProjectSWOLENESS 3 years ago
I love sitting in on these conversations. Walter Block seems like he'd be a wonderful professor.
IJDMLtd 3 years ago
Strong disagreement. He supports voluntary slave contracts, meaning you can constent to slaving yourself to another man.
So, Walter, genius professor, how do you determine the content and duties of that contract objectively...? (you can't).
What if he were confused/mentally unsound when he entered into it? (no objective answer).
WHO would interpret the contract and force the slave relationship? (the persons who held power).
Not saying gov't is good. Am saying libertarianism is no better.
ProjectSWOLENESS 3 years ago
These guys are delightfully camp. Interesting information too.
But it is wonderfull to see the guy in the bowtie crooning over his guest.
Zaphodox 3 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Walter Block, you're making no sense.
You call any kind of government a crime.
Yet you call laissez-faire Ron Paul "poor". "Poor Ron Paul". From a libertarian perspective Ron Paul is a CRIMINAL.
Typical inconsistent "libertarianism", more like religion. This is from someone who holds many libertarian views, but also someone who sees that libertarianism is MAN MADE and HIGHLY inconsistent. The acquistion of property alone is so subjective it isn't even funny.
ProjectSWOLENESS 3 years ago