The Argument From Demotivation: A Lazy Joke [AntiBullshitMan]

Credit goes goes here for the license plate analogy:
http://www.youtube.com/user/FairEconomics

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• antibullshitman
• antibsman
• money
• capital
• value
• fairness
• ain't
• dogma

[DhuggaMan]

Have you watched Chomsky's take on Capitalism? There are some good vids here on you tube of him debunking standard defenses of it effortlessly.

[AntiBullshitMan]

Saw most of it ages ago. Haven't kept up with any of his newer clips, assuming there are any circulating at all. He's fast approaching "that age" where most great minds I've admired tend to throw it all away on account of some fallacious epiphany.

[mikeSrayS]

Interesting...so what do you guys think of all these self-proclaimed "anarcho-capitalists" running around?

[AntiBullshitMan]

They're massive cunts. What else.

[joshuabiere1107]

I would consider my self a pro free market person. I definently agree with you though. I think the reason alot of supression or lack of increase in the working classes income occurs because of this. I do think though certain amounts of inheritence should be allowed. However you are right when someone inherits extreme amounts of money and does not know the value of labor it can not end up good.

[joshuabiere1107]

I would definently consider my self a pro free market person. However I strongly agree with you on this point. I think alot of the reasons the middle class and working class have seen supression of wealth is do alot to the inheritence of the extremely wealthy.

[Weeth]

@soundofgeek: In no way does the veracity of any of my fundamental points depend on the current nature of America's economic system.

Having said that, when you argue that Free-Market Capitalism promotes an arbitrary and unjustifiable allocation of value in society—and when you do so by pointing to something like the U.S. financial industry—I think it's useful to bring up the fact that the financial industry is the most heavily regulated industry in America.

[soundofgeek]

@Weeth

So your entire argument doesn't work under the current economic system? Unfortunate.

[Weeth]

You appear to be conflating Corporatism with Free-Market Capitalism. They are not the same and if you fail to acknowledge the distinction between the two then yes, you are right, it will be very difficult for us to "communicate meaningfully".

[Weeth]

@soundofgeek: First of all, did you just "Good day, sir" me? Really?

Alright, by GFC I assume you're referring to the global financial crisis?

If so, I implore you to re-read my original comment. I chose my words very deliberately. Specifically, the part where I said "assuming free markets". Unless, of course, you are willing to argue that the financial industry in America, with the Federal Reserve, SEC, copious amounts of congressional regulations and GSEs, etc., represents a free market.. ?

[soundofgeek]

@Weeth

"compensation accurately reflects the amount of value that an individual is contributing to society"

The individuals who created the GFC received billions of dollars' 'compensation' (salaries, bonuses etc) for so doing. Your statement is absurd, and your entire argument completely ignores the abuses and excesses which characterise recent economic history.

At this point it's fairly clear that you and I are too far apart in viewpoint to communicate meaningfully. Good day to you, sir.

[Weeth]

@soundofgeek (continued): Money, on the other hand—assuming free markets—must be obtained through voluntary trade in which no party engages without mutual benefit. This means the amount an individual is payed is not at all arbitrary. In fact, compensation accurately reflects the amount of value that an individual is contributing to society. Thus, when you place a limit on compensation, you are effectively placing a limit on how much value individuals can place on other individuals.

[Weeth]

@soundofgeek: If the Sun is going to burn out in a billion years, that affects precisely zero human beings alive right now. More importantly, there is no effort required to receive the benefits of the Sun (other than walking outside). Most importantly, this means that you do not need to confer any benefits to the Sun in exchange for its benefits. In other words, it is a one-way process.

[Weeth]

@AntiBullshitMan: I'm not sure how "bulletproof" that driver's license analogy is. A driver's license is not a fungible good. Rather, it is a certificate with the specific purpose of conveying information that is particular to an individual (namely, identity and driving competence). It serves no purpose, and thus is of no use, to anyone other than the original carrier.