What up, Renton?
http://i.imgur.com/XrVqpdY.jpg
Printable View
What up, Renton?
http://i.imgur.com/XrVqpdY.jpg
I think its basically ok when it occurs naturally and is not backed by a government. We've discussed this before.
I do find it interesting though that most people hate the concept of a monopoly but completely are cool with one as long as its a monopoly over labor. It's another case of irrationally treating labor different than other commodities even though it acts the same in nearly every way.
Anyway, it's the employee's right to bargain for his wages and get the highest one possible just like its the employer's right to pay the least amount possible. As long as some unnaturally large power isn't hurting this system, great.
Are you of the opinion that the sole employee is on even negotiating footing with his or her employer?
Please define "unnaturally" and "large power" as used in this context.
I am. Practically speaking, in a situation where there are multiple employers in need of such a person, that person should be able to bargain for a competitive wage.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
But even if it were a monopoly and only one company in town wanted him, it is still difficult for that company to rip him off because of substitution. For example, if the sole person has a skill which can be applied to other trades, then substituting employers have need of him. In a well developed free market this causes kind of a barrier against exploitative wages ever emerging.
This concept can be seen in the united states by the fact that, by default, a person's time is worth 7-10 dollars an hour. No skills, no nothing. Just based on the supply of labor next to the demand for it, 7 to 10 dollars. There are engineers in Cambodia that make like 2-3 dollars an hour, people with years of university education and internships on top. Basically as an economy emerges and develops, a sort of natural minimum wage develops. Ever notice how almost no one gets paid the minimum wage in America after it hasn't been raised for a while? Before the jump to 7.25, very few people made 5.15 an hour. McDonald's and other salaries were often over 6. I made 5.50 at the movie theater. A low minimum wage is effectively no minimum wage, so that's why you never see rightwingers demanding a repeal of the minimum wage, if they're smart they know that the best way not to have one is not to update the old one.
I got off track here, but to answer your question, the only unnaturally large power that disrupts the employer/employee bargaining relationship is government. Or really any coercive body. It could just be a big gangster dude that threatens either of them with a baseball bat if they don't pay/accept the wage.
And that is what a union is , mafia 101 !Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton
Yeah it's funny, I asked a really smart anarchist friend of mine what he thinks of organized labor, and his answer was, "it's fine as long as they don't use violence."Quote:
Originally Posted by sah_24
And that's really it. People can voluntarily collectively bargain all they want, but as soon as you have a government or other entity using violence or threat of violence to achieve its ends, it's wrong.
I'd argue that unions cause more problems than they solve. They may not have always been like this, but they're simply anachronistic in a highly dynamic, transportable, rapidly changing economy. They act as a special interest for members at the detriment of non-members
I think perhaps the problem is that we believe we live in a society where employers can abuse employees. We may have at one point, but no longer do. Individuals in virtually every field have incredible bargaining power. Unions have become the faction of "how can we keep things the way they've always been no matter what?"
There has been recent union/Boeing trouble in WA. Every year or so this happens. Keeping in mind that I ultimately do not know enough of the issue to say for certain, it sounds to me like the union created a problem after all parties had already agreed and that Boeing hasn't gotten any stingier but has to change payouts due to the changing economic environment
This is just wrong, especially at the bottom rung of employment. An employee inherently has a greater interest in individually staying employed than an employer has in having an individual employee remain in his employ. This is what I was getting at when I asked Renton if he believed the parties were on equal footing in regards to bargaining power. High turn over is detrimental to most business models (but it's very important to note that some business models thrive off of this typically caustic variable), however the negative consequences are seen over months and years, and often the symptoms are never matched to this cause. The employer simply thinks "I can't find any good help!" Conversely, the effects on the employee of losing his job is immediate and devastating. Further, stinted work history always reflects poorly on the worker, yet there is no equitable counterpart wherein the employer suffers.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I don't have much time now, been busy this week so I haven't got to really dig into this, but I'd also like to touch on how an employer can make an example of an employee to whip his staff into line, but employees have no way to parry except, of course, unionizing.
With the speed at which information travels and the relatively high mobility of the workforce, things have gotten a ton better, but to claim employee abuse is nonexistent today is hyperbolic, dishonest, or both.
Make this sentence plural and it changes everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
At the point we are now, employers do not get away with the sort of abuse that people talk about when discussing markets
In a growing economy with flexible labor markets, employees pretty much have the opportunity to optimize their negotiating power. Limits to their power are about them, not about others. The argument only breaks down if we consider their lives so taxing that they can't muster what it takes to apply social mobility. This is a reasonable concern, but for the most part I don't think it's the most relevant concern today.
In a growing economy, employers are always looking to aid and reward productivity. Always. For some employees, it's harder than others, but no sort of regulation against that is going to help
Why are we talking about regulation?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Both Renton and yourself tend to do this in these conversations. Why are you trying to pigeonhole me into this leftist box? Maybe that is my leaning, but it really only moves to stifle discussion by straw manning each other into defending points we expect the other to make; "Well, I don't know, but I sure as hell know you don't have the answer!"
Shit's lame, yo.
Quote:
This is just wrong, especially at the bottom rung of employment. An employee inherently has a greater interest in individually staying employed than an employer has in having an individual employee remain in his employ. This is what I was getting at when I asked Renton if he believed the parties were on equal footing in regards to bargaining power. High turn over is detrimental to most business models (but it's very important to note that some business models thrive off of this typically caustic variable), however the negative consequences are seen over months and years, and often the symptoms are never matched to this cause. The employer simply thinks "I can't find any good help!" Conversely, the effects on the employee of losing his job is immediate and devastating. Further, stinted work history always reflects poorly on the worker, yet there is no equitable counterpart wherein the employer suffers.
I don't have much time now, been busy this week so I haven't got to really dig into this, but I'd also like to touch on how an employer can make an example of an employee to whip his staff into line, but employees have no way to parry except, of course, unionizing.
With the speed at which information travels and the relatively high mobility of the workforce, things have gotten a ton better, but to claim employee abuse is nonexistent today is hyperbolic, dishonest, or both.
Well your original question was do they have equal bargaining power. That doesn't mean the same thing as "do they have equal power." The employer-employee relationship is not equal in the micro sense, nor should it be. The employee enters a voluntary contract to do work for the employer and to comply with his rules or standards. If such standards are unreasonable or if he finds them demeaning or whatever, he reserves the right so seek employment elsewhere. This provides an incentive for employers to treat people fairly and provide amenities and benefits to them. Also, as such amenities and benefits have costs, this is equivalent to increasing the employee's pay, which they also have a lot of incentive to do in a free market.
I guess it seems like employers have an advantage over employees because they do, and they should. Employers are essentially consumers of labor, and like how consumers in markets have great power and influence over sellers and products being sold, employers have such influence over employees. They demand a standard for the price they pay and a standard is provided. This benefits everyone.
Regarding bottom rung employment, there should be high turnover here. There should be low pay, and low benefits. The bottom rung employee should have more interest in keeping his job than the employer should in having a steady person. This is because the supply of lower-skill workers is often high compared with the demand for them. It's also because bottom rung jobs are meant to be transient. I know you don't want us to go back to the regulations stuff, but thats inevitably the liberal's solution to this problem, and it must be addressed. Any intervention to increase the pay, benefits, or treatment of these people will exacerbate the problems therein, as those all would introduce costs and thus reduce the demand for bottom rung labor even further. The shortage of jobs next to the supply is a constant here, it cannot be changed except to be worsened.
It all goes back to a basic problem of looking at labor as this much different thing. It's natural to do this, and I think that the vast majority of left leaning ideology is coming from a well-intentioned and humanitarian point of view. That is probably why it is the prevailing sentiment in the western world. But it doesn't change the fact that almost every policy these people try to enact has the reverse effect on the very people they intend to rescue.
Sooo much this !Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton
Sure, fine, but why do these chats always have to be framed within this left/right policy dichotomy?
Also, what could you even possibly mean with the notion that the employee has equal bargaining power but not equal power? Of course they don't both have the same powers, but I can't imagine that's the distinction you're making, since it's beyond obvious. So, are you going back on your claim of equal bargaining power, or..?
Further, you are essentially saying that the lower rung of labor should have decreased social mobility. While I think this is probably true, I don't think it's enough to just say so and be content with any level of lesser mobility. Social mobility has a stabilizing effect on societies, and ignoring this is to cherry pick variables to tell the story you want to hear.
I think his point suggests the opposite. Low-skill work with high turnover rates can be benefits for upward mobility. The employees can take advantage of the turnover and low-skill levels by applying skill and consistency -- essentially by being better employees. Restaurant work is a great example of this. Both front and back of house jobs are considered low-skill and have huge turnover, but we both know from experience, there's a lot of room for good employees to succeed. A good busser or hostess can move into serving, a good server can move into better shifts or bartending. Good cooks get better wages, better shifts, and choice of stations. These jobs end up paying an amount of money that if you want to move into a different industry, you should be able to apply yourself and get an education while earning a living wage.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
The same exists for virtually every job I can think of. When we hear about all the low wage Walmart workers, I don't think we're getting an accurate story. It doesn't account for the much lower living standards of the region and it is likely cherry picking the workers that just don't work that hard. The caveat to this, however, is if somebody truly does have a tough time making things better due to time consuming stressors like children. But this is an addressable problem and most people who don't utiliize upward mobility aren't hindered by it
BTW I don't mean to make it a left vs right thing. My alignment is all of the above
I'm saying that prior to entering into the employment agreement, the employee has equal footing with the employer in bargaining for his wages and benefits. He doesn't have free rein to make unreasonable demands, but in a market where his there's a demand for his work, he should be able to secure a salary that is in the near vicinity of the prices deemed by the market for such work. Once he enters that agreement, however, it becomes a superior-subordinate relationship. So the employer has the right to do all those awful things you were talking about in your post, and the employee has the right to accept such treatment or leave. As long as none of this violates the non-aggression principle this is fine. While such tyrannical employers invariably exist from time to time, they shouldn't exist for long because any good employer knows the value of a happy employee, and is thus more likely to prevail among competitors.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
I'm not saying he should have decreased social mobility. I'm saying he has decreased social mobility, and there's not much that can be done to change this. And anyway it really just depends on which bottom rung job you're talking about. An unpaid or poorly-paid internship carries tremendous social mobility, as it builds skills and experience in an often highly-paid trade. A McDonald's fry cook provides medium social mobility, as you have a pretty good shot at McDonald's middle management if you work at it long enough. A sweatshop worker provides nearly none, as it is repetitive grunt work that builds no skill whatsoever. But none of that matters too much because these jobs will exist regardless, there's a demand for them and an even bigger supply for them. That is why they are shitty jobs and not great jobs.Quote:
Further, you are essentially saying that the lower rung of labor should have decreased social mobility.
Social mobility may have a stabilizing effect on societies, but I'm unconvinced that policy is or has ever achieved this. This is very hard to prove one way or the other because its all hypothetical, the only modern world we know is one in which employers are penalized heavily for daring to run a business and hire people for jobs.
Would there be more social mobility if it weren't for the tax on corporations that is in effect levied on the employees of these corporations? Would there be more social mobility it it weren't for the social security tax that employers supposedly pay 50% of but every study has shown that they basically just pass the bill to the employee? Would there be more social mobility if it weren't for public funding of higher education which most of us could agree is far more used by the middle class than the poor, even as the poorer people pay a greater percentage of their earnings to the state sales taxes used to fund these institutions?
Probably.
Renton, I'm gonna use this thread to hail you on the econo-com.
WV was just hit with a water crisis and I imagine there was a run on the stores. What are the merits for price gouging in this instance considering the capacity for the federal gov't or private industry to meet the demand without them? It seems to me like there won't be a desperate lack of water and consumers aren't being forced to stretch their paychecks on the back of a rare event they have no responsibility for. I don't see the harm.
Comment by Sumner buried in his blog about price gouging. I didn't post it before because it's essentially what Renton said earlier
To get at your question specifically, Rilla, I'm not sure I understand the scenario, but it sounds like there simply isn't much demand for the product, which means nobody would buy a gouged product and the seller loses potential revenues he would have gotten if he didn't gouge.Quote:
Price gouging refers to the practice of setting prices at the market clearing level, when there has been a sudden supply disruption or increase in demand. It is beneficial for several reasons. 1. It allocates goods to those with the greatest willingness to pay, and thus those who get the greatest benefit from using the product.
2. It encourages suppliers to rapidly bring new supplies to the market with the sudden scarcity. If price gouging does not occur, then there is a supply/demand imbalance (shortage) which can persist for quite some time.
Or maybe I don't understand your point. Regardless, the answer is "the market sets prices. It sets wages, it sets just about everything. What other economically sound options are there anyways?"
I don't have a point. I saw the story in the news and thought of it as a teachable moment.
There are only merits for price gouging when sellers decide to do it. They do it because the price of the product HAS CHANGED. Prices should always be a reflection of demand vs supply. In your situation it sounds like there would be little incentive for anyone to gouge their prices, as demand vs supply has remained stable. If there is a real shortage and people are being forced to go without water, or waste other resources such as time and fuel to find water at the price controlled price, then that would be a situation that some gouging would have helped out. The gouging-allowed result would probably be a transient bump in the price of water followed by a boost in the supply and subsequent price subsiding.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
http://www.reddit.com/r/news/comment...virginia_coal/
Check out the comments about this. I think it's a great opportunity to paint in economy theory within the context of the story as it unfolds, if you can manage it. I'm not a bean counter, let alone a bean-dividend counter but it seems like some economic story could be paralleling this drama.
I took a look at it, I'll try to keep up with the story as it unfolds. I think allowing prices to do their job would do situations like this a lot of good. I don't doubt that if it becomes a major problem FEMA will respond. And considering WV is a state consisting of almost no black people, they may even respond in kind.
The point though is that there's not really a need for a FEMA when markets are allowed to work.
Anyways, I'm out. Don't stretch yourself. That top comment is crazy and some of the ones that follow just strike off of what seems to me to have all sorts of economic forces behind them.
"Hospitals down here are turning away all except the most critical patients."
"Also WV Steel in Poca is selling 6 one gallon jugs of water for $5. Of course there are other places, but those are off the top of my head."
It's beyond the scope of this thread, but a lack of property rights is responsible for that disaster. If rivers were privately owned you'd have a lot fewer problems like this.
How so?Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton
Because when a resource is owned by someone or some company and has a monetary value attached to it, it tends to be better taken care of. No one gives a shit about the publicly owned resources, that's why they tend to be in disrepair. If someone threatens to fuck up your river, which is an asset that you're taking care of, you have to deal with that threat or its your ass. No such urgency exists with governments and they thus have a lot harder time preventing these incidents or making people accountable for their causes.
I think to make the case of privately owning scarce resources like rivers, it needs to be clear how and why it wouldn't create an oligopoly
Split the thread IMO. It's just too deep to talk about here. I'm sleeping now, maybe i'll start one tomorrow.
Renton, every time you make these grand libertarian claims, can you please stop and check if you're presuming a totality of rational actors?
It only takes one privately owned industry, with dominion over a body of water, to slip into short sightedness. Once this happens, there is the potential for that resource to be squander for eons (no hyperbole here.) And while they do currently own the land*, property, ownership, and property rights need to be and their implications aren't so cut and dry when an owner is capable of negatively impacting a scarce resource in such a way that the ill effects last into perpetuity.
*How exactly does this work in libertarian theory? Do they own the plot of land and all land beneath it to its vanishing point at the core, as well as its airspace as it expands to the infinity of outer space? Is it possible for property owners to at times own planets, stars, and even multitudes of entire galaxies due to the whims of the constellation's alignments?
Your union discussion reminded me of this article I read over the weekend...
http://www.vosizneias.com/151631/201...ses-overnight/
Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
This to me sounds like you're describing exactly what the pitfalls of state ownership are. If you replace your "one privately owned industry" with "state" your entire post is dreadfully true.
Even if you suppose that such a private monopoly over a river would emerge, it would still be better than state ownership, for a few simple reasons.
1. Value: private owners ascribe monetary value to things that they own. States do not, really. A private owner of a length of river has to justify the fact that he paid millions or billions of dollars for that river. He has to make money off of this resource and eventually sell the resource to someone else. So you don't have shortsightedness here. The market doesn't allow it. People who squander resources in a market economy are taken care of by the profit and loss system (they lose). The state on the other hand has very little incentive against the squandering of resources, as they have no incentive to get value from the resource they possess.
2. It would never be a true monopoly. It would be a monopoly in the sense that one company may own one very large expanse of river in a local area, but a true monopoly has to have a few things. It has to be one seller, there have to be no viable substitutes for the monopoly good, and there has to be no THREAT of competition. If you ascribe these requirements, you'll find that there have been very few monopolies in human history that weren't governments. A publicly owned river however has all of those requirements and is subject to all of the pitfalls in your post.
3. To respond to your point about rational actors, let's just say that a private owner is more likely to act rationally than a government. Again for the reasons outlined in number 1. But an important point to consider is that in the case of a non-rationally acting owner, the market can weed him out. Again, if someone is hurting or wasting a resource in a market economy, then he's not maximizing his gain and someone will buy him out and use the resource in a more profitable way. Ve have vays of getting rid of irrational actors in a market economy. We have no reliable way of getting rid of an irrational government owner, on the other hand.
Quote:
*How exactly does this work in libertarian theory? Do they own the plot of land and all land beneath it to its vanishing point at the core, as well as its airspace as it expands to the infinity of outer space? Is it possible for property owners to at times own planets, stars, and even multitudes of entire galaxies due to the whims of the constellation's alignments?
Your dripping sarcasm aside, most have agreed on a cone from the core to the upper atmosphere. I imagine this would become more mature once futuristic societies are building far more vertically than they do now. At that point we'll just be purchasing volume I imagine. Do you honestly believe that the simple surface-land-only ownership paradigm will last past the next 50 years?
We can even have fully rational actors. A person can rationally decide that it is preferable to rape their plot of land, leaving it untenable for literal eons. They reap the benefits, live their life like a king, and that's that. This is a perfectly rational way to act. Maybe not ethical, but certainly rational.
1. The state certainly can be corruptible, and politicians can squander public resources, but in a well functioning democracy they are accountable. Further, the fact that the government doesn't see everything in as dollar signs is a reflection of the fact that people don't see everything as dollar signs. There are draw backs to this, but there's also the fact that Yellowstone isn't a geothermal plant, and Yosemite hasn't been strip mined into 1,200 square mile gravel pit. The individual has the great burden to not squander his resources, but an individual can happily vote for "squandering" the financial resources in the national parks, because the burden is not directly on him. Even great barons of industry, such as the Rockefellers fully understood this. They bought up large swaths of land to set aside as nature reserves. However they knew better than to keep it owned privately, as the temptation of a future Rockefeller could trump their wishes. They donated the land to the federal government.
2. Meh, you can force a strict definition here if you want, but it really doesn't mean anything. And I'm not even sure why we're talking about monopolies. Competition has the potential to encourage short sightedness.
3. I'd rather not just say, if you don't mind-- and as I pointed out above, rational actors can produce abhorrent conditions. The market, the market, the market. This argument is hollow and tired. Yes, the market responds to input, and exerts its force, and while it may be omnipresent, it's not omniscient, nor is it omnipotent.
I mean, faith in the market is disturbing man. I have land, it has long term value of X, but I can squander X and squeeze Y out of it for a short term gain. X > Y. You're telling me that either this is not a problem or that it is irrational and the market will weed these people out of the ownership pool. But this is just patently wrong. First it is perfectly rational to pass up long term gains for short term gains depending on immediate need, other opportunities that require liquidity, etc etc. Sometimes there would be a long term investor willing to buy, but there is not guarantee that this bid would trump what can be pilfered short term. If the land is left denigrated long term (which is a reality of many industries), then we are in a situation of an essentially nonrenewable resource.
*Fuckin sweet. Now is the time to snap up cheap shitty homes around airports. You don't even need a perfectly connected loop, but a dense enough "minefield" of property surrounding the airport which can mathematically be shown to be impossible to circumvent given the trajectory of an airplane. Cha-ching!
Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
A renewable resource like fresh water can only be most profitably exploited through sustainable means. In the case of a river you'd virtually never see such "rape." It would be the rough equivalent of Tyson foods deciding to slaughter every single chicken to get a uptick in productivity for a quarter. Tyson's never gonna run out of chickens, and Acme fish company is never gonna run out of freshwater fish. You tend to only see such resource rape with a publicly owned resource, and this is understood by many as the "tragedy of the commons".
Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
The problem is that there's never been a democracy so well functioning as to make people accountable for such things with a degree of reliability.
The fact that the government doesn't see everything as dollar signs is one of the main problems of governments. It's not a plus. Its not like "oh thank god there are some things that no one is trying to make a buck off!" All of those things suck, and would be better if monetary value were ascribed to them. The key to making a resource be squandered and treated like shit by the multitude is to take away its monetary value. This is demonstrable. If everything had a dollar sign attached to it, there'd be less species going extinct. If everything had a dollar sign attached to it, there'd be dramatically less pollution of every kind. If everything had a dollar sign attached to it, there would be less waste. If the united states government saw its mammoth land holdings as dollar signs, they could sell some of it off and put a massive dent in the national debt.
Parks like yellowstone could still easily exist privately. If the government sold off yellowstone and yosemite, no doubt billions would flood from the private sector to preserve those parks. And they'd most likely do a better job of it (/speculation boost would never buy).
Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
I didn't just say, I outlined specific reasons, mr. snarkybreeches. And the market is far more scient and potent than any elected body could ever hope to be. Again (I'm repeating this for like the 40th time) not because it has some mysterious omniscience, but because markets tap the knowledge of millions and millions of people. There's no one person who has to know something. No one committee. People with their financial ass on the line have great incentives not to fuck it up. Governments just have to be loosely accountable to voters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
So you don't think entire neighborhoods or suburbs of cities that have their land values plummet because of a new runway should receive any remuneration? you've got to be trolling with this. As if buying a house near an airport would preclude airplanes from flying there. Of course this is a dispute that would need resolving. Empowering the individual with greater property rights is the way to do this.
The most important point may be about attaching dollar signs to things. I have a hard time seeing how things like parks would be preserved without government intervention, unless, perhaps, dollar signs were attached to virtually everything. A disconnect to understanding this, for others as well as myself, is that it just doesn't make logistical sense how we could move from one to the other.
I am fully convinced that in the area of non-scarce resources, markets work just fine, but scarcity does change things. Another aspect is that voters have a certain sort of regulatory capture of their governments. We see this with things like height limits and price controls on buildings. A purely free market might work way better for most people -- it may be the most democratic thing there is -- but it would still put the boot to all sorts of special interests that people vote for
private oligopoly > private monopoly > public monopoly (current situation)Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
You're getting something very basic wrong here. All resources are scarce, and the more scarce they are, the more crucial it is that they be distributed by a market, and not by a controller.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
How are they all scarce. Oil is far more scarce than water. We have companies that spend billions to get oil to market because it's so scarce, but water is renewable and plentiful in certain regions and that's probably why companies are not needed to control production and distribution like with oilQuote:
Originally Posted by Renton
Any resource that isn't free is scarce by definition. It's a matter of degree, and the degree is essentially the difficulty or cost with which to extract and distribute it. It's difficult to extract and distill oil compared with drinking water. But using public means to distribute a lesser-scarce resource like water still causes major problems that wouldn't exist with private means. These are observable, for instance almost no public water in the world is potable outside the U.S. (and maybe western europe?). And in the U.S. its getting less and less potable. In the hands of competing private entities, tap water would quickly become potable, assuming there were a market for it to be. And it would almost certainly come at a cost that would eventually be less than public water.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Renton, I'm being "snarky" because you've adopted this absurd libertarian position that only works in the fantasy in your head.
The Omni trifecta is necessary for your dream to work. Fisheries will not always have fish. This is evidenced in once bountiful species heading towards extinct. You know what's slowed this down? Regulation. Unless we have the Omni's or we net off the entirety of the ocean (which clearly would actually exacerbate the issue), this is a prime example of a place where an absolute free market does not work.
And no, I will not agree with your claim that the private sector would better handle the national park system. This is one of those aspects of society in which the libertarian pulls the faith argument. I won't allow it here. Show me a business model that both exceeds long term performance of conventional resource gathering, and produces a park which comes even close to the awesomeness which we have today. Otherwise GTFO with "the market will figure it out."
Scarcity:
I think the point wufwugy was heading towards is that scarcity does not necessarily translate into profitability. Pristine national parks are a scarce and fragile resource which does not have very much apparent monetary worth to any individual. They are akin to a priceless work of art which is sculpted out of unobtainium. Profit margins are too slim against the cost of security, procurement, and preservation. It simply makes more sense for an investor to melt it down and sell it for its material value and move on to other investments with higher margins. Afterall, as you said yourself, Renton, the investor who holds onto it, despite the poor margins it offers, will be weeded out by the market. Eventually someone will melt the fucker down.
Your point about potability is very good, actually. I wonder why it's true though. I mean, are you saying that Pierce County tap water is unacceptable in any other counties? Why? I understand how a private company that distributes water for profit would have incentive to keep it potable, but I feel like the reason many don't trust the market is because they don't make the connection between how that incentive is inherently createdQuote:
Originally Posted by Renton
I'd like to see this thoroughly addressed.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
You're essentially saying two things: (1) some sorts of value (like the pristine, artistic, naturalistic value of old-growth parks wouldn't be appropriately represented by dollar values, and (2) dismantling into elemental resources would be the ultimate destiny of something like this, which means we would end up with a world without any preserved, historical landmarks, as well as an assortment of other values (like an overgrown place where you can take your dog and chill).
I think both of those points need to be fully addressed in order to claim the markets can work in such exhaustive ways. I'm not saying they can't (I think they possibly can), but I don't understand how.
First they all menstrate at the same time
now they are organizing their labor
Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
OK I'm gonna shift gears here a little, and then I'm finished because no one is getting anywhere with this.
I was discussing debate with a friend of mine (as in the concept of debate) the other day. I was expressing my dismay that no one ever convinces the other of anything during a debate, and that a debate can easily be won by someone who is wrong, so long as he used superior debate tactics, or at least shouted louder and stepped up his ad hominem game. My friend told me that its useless do debate with someone you strongly disagree with, unless its in a relaxed environment with mutual respect.
So I thought we had a relaxed environment and mutual respect here, otherwise I wouldn't bother. But when you call my position "absurd" and a "fantasy in my head," even as I have clearly delineated examples and logic to back up every claim, it calls that into question. A respect deficit has occurred, without a doubt.
Now, I'm not butt-hurt about it. I actually quite understand. Believe me, I get it that everything I say flies in the face of your entire world view. I am really reluctant to argue such a radical view as privatizing rivers with someone that isn't even with me on the most basic of levels. That's why I didn't want to discuss it in this thread as I thought we were actually getting somewhere with organized labor (maybe we weren't).
Trying to convince you of something like this is an exercise in futility. It's like how atheists debate Ray Comfort over evolution/creation. Forgive the crass analogy, but I think it fits. Your economic belief system (and formerly mine), like creationism, is drilled into nearly every person on the planet from a very young age. I think the indoctrination for statism and even socialism is far far stronger than for christianity for people in the U.S. Especially for someone who grew up near Chicago. It takes major catharsis and often a total identity crisis to shed views like this. I'm just asking you to examine your views logically.
It's like how one man could look at a rare steak and remember a fond date, another could see the craftsmanship of the cook, another the devastation of a sovereign animal, another the nutrition of the flesh. Everyone can look at the world in various ways and see wholly different views. If I am not commited to understanding your view point enough to satisfactorily describe it to you, debate and argument devolve. And when were talking about the underlying nature of human trade and behavior, view points become difficult to express.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton
This is one of the difficulties I have with economics in general. When you read about old debates and arguments in the history of the sciences, people are still exposed to all of the psychological weaknesses of laymen. In the early days of the study of fine neural structures, they argued over whether neurons formed diffuse networks or if each neuron was essentially free. Even with all the weight of evidence pointing to one conclusion, those that initially imagined a fused neuronal network continually found new interpretations to re-establish their views. But they at least had the evidence. There was a root set of observations that allowed anyone to follow through to their own conclusions. An argument in science is eventually resolved when someone figures out what nature has to say on the matter and the force of all argument means nothing. Nature, it is said, doesn't give a shit what you think. In economics, there doesn't seem to be any root set of observations independent of all the psychology of people because it's the study of trading between people. Because of that, it is difficult for me to embrace much economic thinking. I can follow the logic of free trade, but I hesitate to let the mind go wild with it as I don't see any real way to sanity check the conclusions which may come.
So true. Boost, even though I often respect your positions, you do come across as far too snarky, and that does nothing but degrade the conversation to the level of most internet discussions about politics or religion: completely useless. I thought we were better than that :xQuote:
Originally Posted by Renton
Meh, people deserve respect, not beliefs. Just as you say you've supported your claims, the rest of that post is an effort to support my claim that an extreme libertarian ideology is nothing but a fantasy. If you had addressed the legitimate inquiries raised in #40 and #41, I'd have respected that you don't feel like this is a healthy environment for debate-- but as it is, I'm left thinking it's rather convenient for you to "gracefully" bow out on the grounds that the tone of some (all?) of my posts didn't sit well with you. It's funny that you bring up creationism, yet you're the one crying foul because your position isn't being respected, and you're the one who has floated the faith argument.
Don't get me wrong-- in the end, I know I certainly do need to work on my persuasive tactics. I can be harsh and rude in ways that are not productive or conducive to a civil debate, but nonetheless, I'm left feeling it's a bit convenient to pull this now.
As requested:
You can't checkmate free markets with a commonly accepted tragedy of the commons scenario. Netting off the ocean and granting property rights absolutely would solve the problem of over-fishing. The problem is whether this is practical or logistically possible to do. It's a great question, and its a question I have a feeling many more people will be asking during this century as technology* advances and the over-fishing problem deepens. It's also a question that statists find laughably absurd.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
As it is without adequate property rights, yes you have to have a regulatory body intervening or companies acting out of self-interest will pull as much fish out of there while they still can.
*Probably wouldn't be a physical net. Technology will most likely step up to the plate here in a big way. Just as it has and will continue to do with private roads.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
My claim was that yellowstone and yosemite, beloved parks by millions of people (including most likely very rich people who would be its benefactors), would be fine with privatization. No doubt some parks might not exist without government force. It's a complex problem. I imagine if Central Park were privatized that could be a different story, considering the land it sits on is probably worth like 250 billion dollars or some absurd figure.
I don't think its as simple as this. Value is subjective. People spend money on the things that they subjectively value. Often this is just something that makes them happy, and that isn't always something that makes them a buck. Passionate rich people take up causes and dump loads of their money into those causes. In a completely free society, there'd be loads of rich people who are enthusiastic about nature. They would dump loads of their money into preserving nature. You don't have to have a state claiming land by force and making decisions for everyone. We can decide for ourselves every day with our wallets. If a company started chopping down Yellowstone for lumber and people valued it as a park more, the money would flow in to preserve it. And if they didn't, then no one really cares anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
Note that this spend-ocracy is already sort of happening, at least in a free society it would be transparent and not corrupt, and everyone would have a lot more money to spend on what they want.
You stepped up to the plate, and I appreciate that. I don't want to respond point by point, since you did elect to exit the discussion, and I don't want to have to have the last word. With that being said, I would only say that I think you very well fit the definition of an ideologue and that this worries me as it can render a person incapable for flexibility. You never say, "yeah, well, that may be a place where the market wouldn't offer the best solution." Instead it's always "the market will figure it out" even when everything aside from your ideology seems to hint that it wont.
Also, a solution to a problem that is neither practical nor logistically feasible, is not a solution.
I don't see how he's an ideologue. He makes some pretty good points. I honestly don't think I can explain how government can preserve things like Yellowstone better than private interests. The government only preserves Yellowstone as much as voters tell it they care. Private industry would operate the same way, yet far more efficiently. My main issue is that the efficiency is so good and malleable that people might simply value the wrong things and hurt everybody because of it. But I'm not sure how government is that capable of stopping that anyways
It takes a while to become comfortable with markets, but we have ample evidence of scarce resources being turned into abundant ones with wide competition that drives innovation (electronics), and I'm not sure there is some inherent attribute to any specific resources that negate this.
Yeah, maybe I'm just slinging ad hominem attacks.. I don't know..
The example of central park is fitting here, I think it's pretty obvious that if it were sold to private interests it would cease to exist because it would be more profitable to develop the land than keep it as is.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
National parks were created because it was obvious what private interests were doing to the land, and (some) people felt that the unique features and ecosystems of these vast chunks of land were more important than money. Tourism to these areas isn't even close to as profitable as exploiting the resources contained within, so I can't see how the private sector would preserve these areas.
Yeah, I mean, would the private interest have NPR style pledge drives, essentially holding the pristine nature of the parks hostage? What happens when pledges don't exceed what can be harvested in resources? Does this really mean that the pristine parks aren't truly valued? Or are there different forms of value? I'd say it's likely the latter, and that the libertarian lean is some how flawed if the degradation of nature by the free market is supposed proof that nature isn't actually valued, or that it is valued less than Tupperware and Snuggies.
I'm just not sure what I think of the Central Park thing. It would be absolutely great for the economy to cut out regulations in NYC that maintain the park, height limits, rent controls, and a myriad of other things. Agglomerations are an important aspect of commerce, and archaic regulations end up putting a huge stamp on the economy. In the micro view, these things look bad, but in aggregate they're very good. People hate them because they organize people in highly progressive ways, and even the most hippie liberal is still super conservative when it comes to things like where he thinks he should live and where he thinks he should find work.
If we cut out all regulations like this, I think we would see all the different regions have incredible growth around specific kinds of commerce that they're best suited for. This would probably mean Central Park is turned into a business center with sky high buildings, yet other regions are vast, conserved preserves run by companies that attract customers a variety of ways. It's similar to how we discussed in the past how hunting preserves the resources so well. If there are no more regulations on keeping parks around in certain places, I think what may happen is people would highly value keeping parks around in other places. It sounds shitty that if you live in a city center, maybe you shouldn't have easy access to a park, but in the long run that probably works out better for everybody because of how it organizes things. It would do things like create higher levels of commerce in the inner city, create better privately run parks in the surrounding area, and create better transportation to and from. In all honestly, it might evolve into a system where access to higher quality parks is even better than what NYCers get with Central Park
Now that I think about it, this could be a really big thing. If regulations were cut out and Central Park vanished, there would be quite a bit incentive for parks just outside the city and efficient transportation. There would also be more incentive for apartment complexes to build better accommodations for tenets with pets and stuff. One of the biggest problems in cities is rent controls and height limits that stall virtually any sort of improvement in conditions you can think of. Regulations are absolutely terrible at sorting. They waste talent and resources like nobody's business
Here's an example. Zoning regulations are killing the economy in ways that would surprise everybody. Like, without them, growth would be rapid as fuck, with the sky as the limit
http://www.slate.com/articles/techno...s_welcome.html
Places like Silicon Valley would become futuristic meccas if it wasn't for zoning regulations. It's not happening because people have the vote and they don't want to get nudged out. Essentially, they're a special interest that uses regulatory capture that keeps the world from improving because the value they bring is no longer competitive. Cutting these sorts of regulations is actually a hugely liberal principle, but nobody sees it that way because everybody is a conservative when things affect them personally. But if you wanna make the world a better place, cut the zoning shit
It's for reasons like this that I predict Texas will surpass California in population and GDP in the latter half of the century. Of course, what will likely happen is that each new generation will become their own conservative faction in favor of all sorts of regulations, and as Texas booms, it will eventually strangle itself just like California has
Also, a lot of what people want governments to regulate (like old growth forests) aren't really things people care too much about. They're quite abstract and people care just enough to keep any sort of change happening, but the real value of those forests is never assessed. We care far, far, far, far, far more about things like having a good job than our ability to seldom experience a natural wonder, yet policy is contradictory to this. Regardless, I think that even in a totally free market, lots of old growth forests would be preserved. I could probably make a case for why we'd see more preservation of natural wonders
I appreciate the humility you have in saying "might" because I'm struggling to think of a single example of this happening because of deregulation, and can think of many examples of this happening because of regulation.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
This is a classic loophole of the free market argument: "The free market will take care of this-- but in the event that it doesn't, clearly it wasn't meant to be! Viola! Shazam! Abrakazaba! Magic, bitches."Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I don't intend to treat it like a loophole. If we take a step back, I think we can agree that every philosophy has losers. Even if it's just "tax the rich a little more", the losers are those rich who get taxed. But we tend to be okay with this because we think it's fairer for society in aggregate. Likewise, if I argue for something about the markets, I mean for it to work in aggregate.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
With no Central Park, wouldn't there be high demand for Central Park? With this high demand, a private company could create a central park, and it would end up being more accessible, cheaper, and of higher quality than the Central Park. It would involve things like being placed in the part of city where the company thinks it will reach the highest utility while also costing the least. Hell, these new "central parks" might become so popular that they take up significant sectors of the hinterland and surround the city, providing far greater aggregate access, quality, and cheapness.Quote:
Originally Posted by dozen
Central Park is right now a subsidy. NY taxpayers are paying good money to the city to keep it up while also detracting from their own potential value. If this subsidy was eliminated, the influx of capital would make these NYers, in aggregate, richer and would provide them with greater access to other parks if the demand for a park was indeed there. If the demand wasn't there, then it would suggest that Central Park was a bad subsidy whose costs were far above value. From what I see on google about Central Park, it appears that there would be great demand for things like it, so it wouldn't "go away" without regulation. It would just relocate and take on a more efficient cost/benefit structure
The markets allocate resources like nobody's business. Government doesn't.
In the long, long run, market allocation will do things like improve transportation so much that nobody would even want to go to Central Park anymore, because they could just take a short high speed rail ride (or Hyperloop!) to Niagara Falls. Overall costs would be lower and quality of product/experience would be higher. Growth in each hinterland sector would be more efficient and quicker. The world already allocates itself like this except where the government regulates
In the other thread, it was mentioned several times that we need to find an advanced theory above democracy. What if the free market is that theory? Look at it like this: democracy is where you vote for a representative on a piece of paper once a year or whatever; the markets are where you vote with you capital, your choices, your money, your labor. Perhaps the next evolution of society is a free market economy, where all things are distributed based on how they're valued
Yellowstone and Central park are VASTLY different land values. I don't think you can say with certainty that a big plot of beautiful nature in the middle of the most population-sparse part of the country would get knocked down for cul de sacs. Being in the middle of the central business district of the largest and richest city in the world is a different thing entirely.Quote:
Originally Posted by d0zer
I think an essential reason why people believe in the need for government is to guarantee certain liberties and rights. I know I've argued for this in the past -- recently, actually. But from what I know about China, that may not be necessary or optimal. As we all know, the improvement in China is rapid to an unprecedented degree, but something we don't talk about is that this improvement has nothing to do with the Chinese state guaranteeing liberties. The government has simply loosened some of its authoritarian controls and opened aspects of commerce. This has created a nation where liberties as well as economic status of the people are improving. It's all non-coercion as well. All the factory workers that we hear about on the news are doing so by choice, because their only other options are even poorer lives in the countryside. I think the news about this we get in the West tends to focus exclusively on circumstances that have no greater significance than average. What I mean is that when the suicide rate is a certain percentage, you can't claim a particular circumstance leads somebody to suicide when that circumstance doesn't have a statistically significant suicide rate. As far as I know, no reports have shown any statistical significance with regards to Chinese factory worker suicide rates, yet when it happens, we hear about it and the media declares causality
My overarching point is that it appears markets improve "inherent" liberties without state involvement. If this is true, it's probably one of the last straws for me personally, as my main support for the state is to guarantee certain rights. My other main objection to a stateless society would begin to crumble if I could construct a sound theory for how the free markets could account for all areas that need welfare like disability and old age. But I have yet to see the anti-regulation types I look up to figure out a way for the markets to deal with outliers like that
Cul de sacs aren't the most cost-efficient use of the land, which is why you only really see those in the suburbs where land is cheaper. It would be large apartment buildings and/or office buildings like everything else around it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton
The free market is pretty clear where greenspace belongs: outside of major metropolitan areas where land is cheap. There currently doesn't exist a business model for greenspace being more profitable than developed land. The economic demand for developed land in major centers is just so much higher than greenspace.
Wuf, your scenario of the free market creating parks because of new demand for them isn't realistic because of the skewed demands. There is simply a higher economic demand for developed land than there is public parks. If there is an increased demand for greenspace after the public parks shut down, maybe some developers will include some greenspace in development plans, but they'll have to recoup the money they're "wasting" by charging more, creating a climate where only the rich can afford any local greenspace at all.
This brings us back to the idea of welfare, that we want a society that has a decent/ok base standard for all, instead of the super rich and the 3rd world all in one society.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_open_space
A really basic critique of government is that the value we get from it comes at a very high cost. It does things inefficiently, often grossly so. The decent/ok base standard that it attempts to provide for all comes at a cost many times that of the actual benefits received. For example, governments usually attempt to provide for the poor and infirm by putting up very harsh barriers to capital accumulation, the very thing that needs to happen to third world shitholes as quickly as possible, and the very thing that enables standards of living to skyrocket. The level of capital accumulation is really the only thing differentiating rich countries like Canada from the newly-industrializing third world shitholes like Cambodia (my current location).Quote:
Originally Posted by d0zer
In certain places. There is absolutely no demand for developed land at Northwest Trek. This wildlife preserve/tour/zoo/whatever is pretty awesome. I've been there a couple times. It's run in a sort of public-private way, I think. I think in a free market where the government doesn't guarantee parks, places like this would arise in the hinterland, would have far better attractions and services and better transportation to and from. I think if nature preserves/attractions were purely private, we would see all sorts various things like giant Disneylands of nature for vacations, small parks in residential areas, preserves for various outdoor activities, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by d0zer
The issue is that networks naturally organize in a certain way, and Central Park is an affront to how NYC would organize itself if people weren't forced to pay for it. In the long run, I think fixing this would give more people better access to parks because it would allow supply to more adequately represent demand. Central Park isn't exactly that great for people in NYC. I haven't been there, but I bet that it's far more difficult to access a park in the city center than if there were ones outside the city
It's hard to defend inefficiency for obv reasons, but I guess some things are just important enough to overpay for just so you make sure everyone gets some, like the american military.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton
That quote is talking about urban public parks given the context, there's no need to bear grillz me.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Well, part of my point is that "everybody getting some" is improved by the markets. I don't know for certain, but it appears that Central Park decreases accessibility to parks in aggregate. Being that it's in the middle of urban congestion, not that many people have easy access to it relative to population and costs and other factors. How networks organize themselves isn't unique to markets. City topology suggests that access and quality for parks would increase if they're somewhere on the perimeter of the urban center. I imagine that a lot of people who don't live or work that far from Central Park still have to commute forever to get there, and that if the city didn't subsidize a park, there would be more accessible and higher quality parks elsewhere. And even if the city stopped collecting taxes for the park, if people still valued it, those people could pay for it, which would distribute capital more reasonably, in a fair manner, and ultimately benefits everybodyQuote:
Originally Posted by d0zer
A city is more than just the urban area. I think the way the markets organize cities would create parks and reserves in the hinterland that are more accessible and of higher quality to those who live and work in the urban areas than Central Park is to its urban area.Quote:
Originally Posted by d0zer
I think we take for granted things like traffic congestion, but the truth is that in a market-organized city, there would be very little congestion for a variety of reasons that boil down to the need for efficiency. We already know one way to do this logistically, but governments would never implement it due to the regulatory capture by voters who don't want change or don't understand the issues. I think in a market-organized city, it would be far easier to commute to a Northwest Trek sort of place for far more people than commuting to Central Park for the same number of people. And the same would apply to all sorts of parks, with all sorts of attractions that the companies implement that tax-funded parks don't have