Anti-Capitalist Sentiment (with some morality)

I read it. And I know I'm wasting my time arguing about this, but tbh it's fun, so I'll persist.

Quote:

---

Renton described a situation where the government is the cause of a problem. Your response is to solve the problem of government intrusion with government intrusion.

---

I don't agree that this situation is caused by government intrusion. I believe it's caused by human selfishness.

Quote:

---

Please think about what you just said. You have argued for the position you're against. The position you hold is supposed to say "profits don't create incentive".

---

No, I realise that profit creates an incentive. I just think this relects badly on people. There should be a greater incentive in public health. The fact that profit is the greater incentive is exactly my problem.

Quote:

---

This situation is like if you put a 2 ton dead weight in the trunk of your car and then you say "well the only way to keep the vehicle functioning is to alter its structure and engine"

---

No, you remove the 2 ton dead weight, which I would argue is profit.

Quote:

---

I've posted video of Milton Friedman answering this question several times. Adam Smith's most famous quote is about it: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." This is an extremely well understood phenomenon in economics. It is covered in literally Chapter 1 in my Econ 101 textbook. A market economy creates a greater amount of good for the people precisely because both producers and consumers act in their own self-interest. The seller wants to optimize his profits and the buyer wants to minimize his costs. A market consists of multiple buyers and sellers, so only the fittest survive.

---

I'm not arguing you're wrong. I'm arguing that this is the problem. Profit is the greatest incentive. It shouldn't be.

Quote:

---

Because that incentive is weak.

---

It's weak because of the selfish nature of human beings.

Quote:

---

This is false. Medical salaries are enormous precisely because of government.

---

I don't have a problem with high medical salaries, especially given the level of expertise and the training necessary to achieve such standards. But wages will always be higher in the private sector because the private sector are competing. Suddenly top doctors are like sports stars, keenly sought after by the private sector. Who pays for these inflated wages? Sick people.

Quote:

---

This doesn't happen. It never happens in government, but it always happens in markets. Fun that.

---

What, investment from government doesn't happen? Why not? What's the problem with government taking the role of a business? If the private sector can make a tidy profit from medicine, why can't the government make a modest profit while keeping costs down?

Quote:

---

What you are describing you don't like are monopolistic elements. The solution you are prescribing is an unfettered monopoly.

---

Yes, but at least when the government monopolises, they are accountable at elections. Can we vote this hedge fund manager out? Can we fuck.

I realise that I am never going to convince people like you who religiously support free markets that there is a better way. I mean I don't even know if there's a better way, I'm not pretending to be an economist here. It's just my opinion is that the way the world works is fucked up and results in selfish, greedy behaviour, and a total lack of empathy. Renton talks about toothbrushes for 30c like that's a good thing. It's not. 30c toothbrushes mean someone isn't getting paid as much as they should, and it means that people consume more than they need to. I'm going on holiday, where's my toothbrush? Fuck it, I'll just buy a new one. Who cares if some Indian kid gets 5p an hour in a sweat shop.

I guess I'm slowly learning that my problem isn't capitalism, it's people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I guess I'm slowly learning that my problem isn't capitalism, it's people.

---

:clap:

Now, if wufwugy could only realize the same thing...
:p

Maybe this discussion should be reserved for people who aren't welfare queens.

Really? Your contribution is a lame back handed slap at me?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

For who? I mean, sure, for sooooooooooome people who don't need to engage it, but really, go take away the motive for somebody to profit and he's going to live on the street and not afford basics.

---

So what drives the profit motive?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I guess I'm slowly learning that my problem isn't capitalism, it's people.

---

Problems of human frailty are exacerbated by concentrating power. In capitalism, a selfish asshole does selfish things with his own property. In politics, the same selfish asshole does the same selfish things with everyone's property.

Quote:

---

Renton talks about toothbrushes for 30c like that's a good thing. It's not. 30c toothbrushes mean someone isn't getting paid as much as they should, and it means that people consume more than they need to. I'm going on holiday, where's my toothbrush? Fuck it, I'll just buy a new one. Who cares if some Indian kid gets 5p an hour in a sweat shop.

---

How do you know that? Maybe its someone getting paid $20/hour throwing a lever to a massive toothbrush assembly machine that creates thousands of toothbrushes per hour. Even if it is due to cheap labor like you say, it's almost certainly the case that those laborers are better off than if Colgate corporation didn't exist. Poor countries are responding to globalization very positively, with decreased infant mortality, increased life expectancy, and booming population growth. People from subsistence farming communities who were previously living a miserable existence in food and health insecurity are now much more gainfully employed, better-fed, and more healthy. Do they enjoy their jobs? Relative to their previous job, which was living in a gutter, probably so. Would they like a better job? Of course. That's the case for about 99% of the world. All capitalism does is to give people the tools to incrementally improve their own lives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

:clap:

Now, if wufwugy could only realize the same thing...
:p

---

+1

While some other system might solve these problem, it won't solve all the new ones people will create.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renton

Problems of human frailty are exacerbated by concentrating power. In capitalism, a selfish asshole does selfish things with his own property. In politics, the same selfish asshole does the same selfish things with everyone's property.

---

So how will the free market prevent politics from returning?

edit As a neophyte philosopher of Economics, it also seems to me that capitalism has a lot of mechanisms for the concentration of wealth. And when you concentrate wealth, you concentrate power and when you concentrate power, you approach something like politics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

So how will the free market prevent politics from returning?

---

All we need is a politics that is friendly toward capitalism. All problems of racism and corruption aside, the U.S. from 1800-1900 and to a lesser extent 1900-1960 embodied this. Compared with most of the developed world, the U.S. is still one of the most capitalism-friendly countries, and that's probably the only thing about the U.S. I have any pride for when I talk with people abroad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

edit As a neophyte philosopher of Economics, it also seems to me that capitalism has a lot of mechanisms for the concentration of wealth. And when you concentrate wealth, you concentrate power and when you concentrate power, you approach something like politics.

---

Again, I don't think this particularly matters as long as the will of the people is pro-capitalist. Corporate interests are able to lobby politicians because the politicians have the power to sling billions of dollars around. They have that power because the U.S. populace believes that having a 6 trillion dollar state budget is alright by them. If people knew how much damage this massive misallocation of resources was causing, they would vote to limit state power and lobbying wouldn't nearly be as profitable.

So, we just need politics to resolve itself? And never again will we see that shadow of human nature?

edit Dbags like this price-jacking guy are gonna exist. This trick might not fly, but someone will find something else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renton

Again, I don't think this particularly matters as long as the will of the people is pro-capitalist. Corporate interests are able to lobby politicians because the politicians have the power to sling billions of dollars around. They have that power because the U.S. populace believes that having a 6 trillion dollar state budget is alright by them.

---

Yeah, people are stupid.

Quote:

---

If people knew how much damage this massive misallocation of resources was causing, they would vote to limit state power and lobbying wouldn't nearly be as profitable.

---

But people are stupid, though.

PS and you and I are absolutely included in 'people' here.

Also, re: the price-jacker, public pressure is causing him to lower the price. I think people really underestimate the power of public outcry and reputation harm in markets. They are often able to tackle "market failures" with the subtlety that a price control would lack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renton

Also, re: the price-jacker, public pressure is causing him to lower the price. I think people really underestimate the power of public outcry and reputation harm in markets. They are often able to tackle "market failures" with the subtlety that a price control would lack.

---

He said that to calm the crowds and you hear it as another victory for the power of the decentralized hive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renton

Also, re: the price-jacker, public pressure is causing him to lower the price. I think people really underestimate the power of public outcry and reputation harm in markets. They are often able to tackle "market failures" with the subtlety that a price control would lack.

---

And public outcry is another example of how the people can cause undue harm. Look at that one professor who was fired because people took a joke of his out of context.

Donald Trump is so popular because he completely bucks public outcry. He's deaf to PC.

It's just another one of these arms of human civilization that can swing all sorts of ways.

Ong this is a pretty good post. You are being insightful in your own ways and going for logical consistency.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I don't agree that this situation is caused by government intrusion. I believe it's caused by human selfishness.

---

Well, yes, that is true. Human selfishness is caused by evolution, which is caused by biology, which is caused by physics, which is caused by math, etc etc. When we debate causality with regards to policy, it's typically with respect to the changeable. We can change the economic, social, and political structure we live in, but we can't change our innate selfishness.

Quote:

---

There should be a greater incentive in public health.

---

There certainly should be, but there isn't and there's no reason to believe this can change. Renton's responses are more specific. They're about how regardless of the lack of altruism in humankind, the system of government exacerbates the problem by giving the selfish greater and more pervasive power than they would otherwise have.

Quote:

---

No, you remove the 2 ton dead weight, which I would argue is profit.

---

Agreed. My point is that using government to fix a problem that exists because of the involvement of government in the first place is not removing the weight.

Quote:

---

I don't have a problem with high medical salaries, especially given the level of expertise and the training necessary to achieve such standards.

---

Interesting to note, there actually isn't naturally a high level of expertise and training needed for most medical services. Government, however, has basically made it illegal to practice most medicine without vast over training and expenses. One example, I remember reading a study a while back where a region reduced the licensing required to practice certain types of dentistry. This resulted in a greater amount of poor people getting dental care (because services were more affordable). That's just one documented of the many benefits to reducing the ridiculous licensing problems. Today, the main reason dentistry is epicly expensive is the vast under supply of practitioners due to the crazy barriers to entry in the industry created by law. Keep in mind that these laws exist from the lobbying of medical unions. Government doesn't intend bad, but by nature it has a lobby-able legal monopoly, so its results are bad.

Quote:

---

But wages will always be higher in the private sector because the private sector are competing.

---

Wages are lower in competition. It sounds bad to most people, but one of the benefits to a free market is that wages can be any low amount. This is good economics because it allows every level of laborer to have employment and be productive while building the skills necessary to increase his wages. The lay love wage floors, but (most) economists hate them because they're quite harmful.

Quote:

---

Suddenly top doctors are like sports stars, keenly sought after by the private sector. Who pays for these inflated wages? Sick people.

---

Even sick consumers act in their own self-interest. Singapore is one example of a country with a healthcare system that blows the socks off any European one, and it has done so mostly by acknowledging that even sick consumers act in their own self-interest. The policy is health savings accounts as opposed to blanket insurance for all. Singaporeans get great healthcare for a fraction of the cost, and the savings go into their own pockets. Also, the rock star doctors you're referring to are a product of government killing their competition with the laws like I alluded to earlier.

Quote:

---

What, investment from government doesn't happen? Why not? What's the problem with government taking the role of a business? If the private sector can make a tidy profit from medicine, why can't the government make a modest profit while keeping costs down?

---

Because it's a monopoly. It has very little incentive to keep costs low, which is why every example you can find where government has a lot of deals is unusually, head-scratchingly expensive compared to equivalent types of goods/services where government has few deals. Seriously, make a list. I have yet to see any examples with heavy government involvement and low relative cost with large relative supply. I'd love to find one. To be clear, there are many examples of this in the private sector. Food and software are my go-to examples, because they're both mostly absent of government intrusion (food less so than software), they're both incredibly robust (creating all sorts of amazing things for super cheap "out of thin air"), and one is a necessity while the other a pleasure (more or less).

Quote:

---

Yes, but at least when the government monopolises, they are accountable at elections. Can we vote this hedge fund manager out? Can we fuck.

---

The democratic vote gives you a voice once every two years. It's a muddled voice too. One that you yourself say you don't even wanna partake in.

The choice of consumers in a market gives you multiple voices every day. They're often very specific voices too. Ones that you engage in regularly.

Take a poll asking "do you feel like you get what you want from McDonald's?" and another asking "do you feel like you get what you want from your government?" Compare the results. Come fetch me when you find that a sizable majority claim they get what they want from McDonald's and only a small minority say that of government. The jury is in, the fat lady has sung, the TPS reports have been filed; we know that consumer choice in a market is a more effective vote than the democratic one.

Quote:

---

It's just my opinion is that the way the world works is fucked up and results in selfish, greedy behaviour, and a total lack of empathy.

---

I've posted this many times, but I recommend watching it. It's very short. I think you might find it insightful.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A

Quote:

---

Renton talks about toothbrushes for 30c like that's a good thing. It's not. 30c toothbrushes mean someone isn't getting paid as much as they should, and it means that people consume more than they need to. I'm going on holiday, where's my toothbrush? Fuck it, I'll just buy a new one. Who cares if some Indian kid gets 5p an hour in a sweat shop.

---

The boiling down to brass tacks of it all is that prosperity is production. Full stop. Productivity is the rate of production, so usually that's what you hear about since we're mostly concerned with increasing rates since that increases our prosperity. Regardless, the one and only creation of prosperity is when resources are manipulated in order to create a more valued resource. This is like how all the resources that make up a pencil you write with have tiny value compared to the pencil itself. From productivity advancements emerge greater amounts of production, and from that comes the large and increasing supply of pencils at low and decreasing costs. This brings the pencil to you. It brings it to everybody. The entire society, from richest to poorest, are made wealthier and more prosperous because of this process. The poor benefit far, far more than the wealthy too.

Renton mentioned the flip side of this, where laborers who make these cheap products are so productive that they can produce a very large amount of them and make good wages. I'll add that this is absolutely true, even in China and SE Asia (where China is losing manufacturing to today). We westerners don't think of the Chinese factories as being a good bargain for the workers, but that couldn't be further from the truth. Western Chinese have been flooding from the dirt poor farm life so they can improve their lives by making cheap products instead. Because of this and other economic elements, wages in China have been rising very rapidly, far faster than anything in West. The people are seeing in their lifetimes much greater increases in relative prosperity than we are. For this they have trade to thank. Watch this video too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXMnAPGY1uE

There's an economic principle called comparative advantage. The short of it is that because there is always an opportunity cost to a behavior, every person (or country) has a comparative advantage in what they can spend their time producing. This is true regardless of their absolute advantage or lack thereof. You can be terrible at producing one specific thing, but if you have a lower opportunity cost by producing that than the next best option, you are more prosperous by doing so.

If this doesn't make sense, don't worry. Just know that just because something looks too low for you doesn't mean it is too low for the person producing it. Comparative advantage is often taught before supply and demand in economics because it's just that robust and important a concept.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

So what drives the profit motive?

---

I'm sure you know. The most fundamental is basic necessities. After that comes various status and pleasure things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

So how will the free market prevent politics from returning?

---

By providing. Take the internet for example. It provides, people don't want the government involved to nearly the extent that we did for previous communication revolutions like radio and TV.

The more market oriented things are, the more people like markets. The more self-reliant people are, the more they dislike government dependence. Just look at how the people who run their own businesses have some serious hatred for government (like those in trades), while those who have very little responsibility love government (like students).

Quote:

---

edit As a neophyte philosopher of Economics, it also seems to me that capitalism has a lot of mechanisms for the concentration of wealth. And when you concentrate wealth, you concentrate power and when you concentrate power, you approach something like politics.

---

Like what?

"which is caused by physics, which is caused by math"

No, sir.

No one knows or understands the cause of physics. At best, we can kind of describe physics with math up to a point. It still has not been shown mathematically that Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity are not in direct conflict with each other. Even if it someday is shown... there is no reason to believe that a physical universe is implied, "'cause numbers."

We can't even prove that numbers exist outside of some fallible quirk of cognition. The definition of "one" is the most scandalously redundant and self-referencing in a dictionary. It seems clear that we don't know what "one" truly means outside of the notion that "stuff" is distinguishable... which many cultures have posited is a false perspective.

It can't even be demonstrated that logic is a useful tool to understand things and their relations. Bear in mind that in order to justify the use of logic as a tool, you must not USE the tool you're trying to justify using... that's circular thinking, and strictly not logical.

i dont think arguing against that position is the most unreasonable thing somebody could do, but yeah i get your point. math cant be considered a cause.

except for the cause of other math things, i guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Really? Your contribution is a lame back handed slap at me?

---

I mean if you're calling yourself a welfare queen, then that's your business.

And for any of you fucks who want to continue to shit on capitalism because you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about: http://blog.chron.com/thetexican/201...in-clear-lake/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I guess I'm slowly learning that my problem isn't capitalism, it's people.

---

I forgot to respond to this earlier.

This is one of the main reasons I'm so pro-capitalism and anti-government. Government is a human institution that requires human virtue to function reasonably well. Markets are not a human institution. They're a description of a type of environment. They have no central authority, no ideology, no arbitrator. Even when appearances are that something like global trade looks like a human institution, it's not an institution because it lacks those elements. Markets include billions of daily transactions, none of which are guided by an ideal or a greater good. Markets don't exist by discretion of human will, but instead emerge from human behavior.

None of this can be said for the state. It's not emergent in the same way. It's a didact. It requires stoicism. The state has purpose, a purpose it is provided by human will. It has ideology, is a central authority, and arbitrates. These institutional characteristics mean that it gets its power from the people. The very people you say you have a problem with. The quality of a government depends on the quality of its people. In it manifests all of our weaknesses.

Markets don't require our virtue and they make our weaknesses forgettable. They make it common for every home to defy the darkness of nighttime, to casually drive down the street five times faster than you could run, to hear the voices and see the moving pictures of thousands of people you've never met, for Brits and Yanks to bicker with each other through wires in the ocean. If magic was real, markets would be the factory in which it is conjured.

Capitalism in nature is a fun topic as well

I like this one. Hadn't watched it before. He briefly covers what makes a bad law bad and uses UK history.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-7oMOxPjNE

Senor Sowell is such a fucking gangster.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eu_bKJ11O0M

@wuf:

For someone who seems to detest hearing an appeal to authority coming from anyone else, you sure do try to buoy your opinions by noting that someone else said it before you did.

Other than that, how does pair of videos not just scream to you that both of these guys are picking and choosing their facts to fit their preconceived agendas?

These are basically propaganda videos. There is no thoroughness to their points. They throw out a laughably shallow interpretation of what facts they do site.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

For someone who seems to detest hearing an appeal to authority coming from anyone else, you sure do try to buoy your opinions by noting that someone else said it before you did.

Other than that, how does pair of videos not just scream to you that both of these guys are picking and choosing their facts to fit their preconceived agendas?

These are basically propaganda videos. There is no thoroughness to their points. They throw out a laughably shallow interpretation of what facts they do site.

---

An appeal to authority is when you claim something is true because an authority says so. It's not when you listen to credible opinions. I don't consider it a failure to listen to experts when they discuss the subjects in which they have expertise.

Sowell is a highly renowned economist and Friedman is one of the most renowned economists of all time. Listening to them talk economics is no different than listening to Feynman and Tyson talk physics.

The "shallowness" of their explanations are no greater than the shallowness of any of your favorite scientists when presenting in the popular media. Nobody's providing rigorous proofs and data in these things. They're presenting the theory in palatable slices, not showing you how academia has come to consider the theory the theory. Besides, it's not like you guys would rather spend hundreds of hours reading economic literature.

"Sowell is a highly renowned economist and Friedman is one of the most renowned economists of all time."
So I should believe them when they say things which are contradictory to my own observations?
That's an appeal to authority.

***
I'm not discrediting the men. I'm saying those videos are propaganda.

To compare the way they pick certain facts which support their preconceived ideas - to a scientist citing certain measurements to illustrate an idea which they have sought, yet failed, to disprove - is a false equivalence.

If there are facts which would illustrate that the scientist's theory is incorrect, and that scientist intentionally ignores or suppress those facts by implication, then that scientist would have no credibility in their field. They would not be among my favorite scientists.

The notion that the shallowness is the same is also a false equivalence. When an astronomer says that satellites follow elliptical orbits, without any evidence or proof is not the same as someone spouting racist or nationalist generalizations. In the former case, it is plainly and unequivocally demonstrable by examining any of the facts on the subject. In the latter, there are myriad counter examples which belie the fact that one can only come to the same conclusions by picking and choosing the same "facts" in the same context.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

By providing. Take the internet for example. It provides, people don't want the government involved to nearly the extent that we did for previous communication revolutions like radio and TV.

The more market oriented things are, the more people like markets. The more self-reliant people are, the more they dislike government dependence. Just look at how the people who run their own businesses have some serious hatred for government (like those in trades), while those who have very little responsibility love government (like students).



Like what?

---

Pretty surprised you can't answer the second question. Capitalism has a mechanism for wealth-accrual. The most successful become the wealthiest. Wealth means the ability to command more work and resources which gives you an edge for controlling more wealth. Wealth can breed more wealth. At some point, some where, some one will wield so much wealth, they could tip over from using wealth to participate in the market place to using wealth to control the lives of people most dependent upon him. He may also use his wealth to guard his ability to generate wealth which could approach something like war.

Your first point is meaningless. People who have their money taken don't like having their money taken - so what?

edit and its doubly meaningless because of your internet point, where people are self-reliant through piracy and human nature is clearly sitll alive and well as seen by all the tribalism and hatred that spreads like wildfire throiughout it.

Why governments will always exist:

In Anarchy, violence enjoys primacy. Anyone with an edge in violence will reap benefits in every other corner of life. The marketplace can not defeat Anarchy's legacy (States) nor can it defeat the incentive to be the most violent.

Why States won't implement a sustained free market:

States must maintain internal stability to maintain its ability to wage war. The State has an incentive to reallocate its resources to maintain internal stability. A free market will mean reduced services to the least privileged of society which will lead to increased social unrest. A free market will also present members of the same tribe with stark examples of the haves-vrs-the-have-nots which will breed contempt and more social unrest. The State, therefore, has an incentive to be seen as providing a safety net and social securities. (Look at histories best examples of free markets - the US, Sinagpore, Hong Kong, a free market is societies sprint, not its marathon.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

A free market will mean reduced services to the least privileged of society which will lead to increased social unrest.

---

Yeah if the welfare queens don't get their food stamps and weed money, then we're all in for a world of shit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

And for any of you fucks who want to continue to shit on capitalism because you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about: http://blog.chron.com/thetexican/201...in-clear-lake/

---

This is more up to standard. And it's relevant. Bravo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

"Sowell is a highly renowned economist and Friedman is one of the most renowned economists of all time."
So I should believe them when they say things which are contradictory to my own observations?
That's an appeal to authority.

***
I'm not discrediting the men. I'm saying those videos are propaganda.

To compare the way they pick certain facts which support their preconceived ideas - to a scientist citing certain measurements to illustrate an idea which they have sought, yet failed, to disprove - is a false equivalence.

If there are facts which would illustrate that the scientist's theory is incorrect, and that scientist intentionally ignores or suppress those facts by implication, then that scientist would have no credibility in their field. They would not be among my favorite scientists.

The notion that the shallowness is the same is also a false equivalence. When an astronomer says that satellites follow elliptical orbits, without any evidence or proof is not the same as someone spouting racist or nationalist generalizations. In the former case, it is plainly and unequivocally demonstrable by examining any of the facts on the subject. In the latter, there are myriad counter examples which belie the fact that one can only come to the same conclusions by picking and choosing the same "facts" in the same context.

---

This is not the medium by which what you want from them is addressed. The same is true for Feynman and Tyson. The equivalence is not false.

They are not citing data that only supports them. I'm not sure why you think they are, perhaps because you disagree with them so you assume they must be cherry picking. But the points they make come from analysis of all the available data. The stuff Friedman said is super consensus among the experts, and the stuff Sowell said is a theory that he thinks the data (all the data) support.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

Pretty surprised you can't answer the second question. Capitalism has a mechanism for wealth-accrual. The most successful become the wealthiest. Wealth means the ability to command more work and resources which gives you an edge for controlling more wealth. Wealth can breed more wealth. At some point, some where, some one will wield so much wealth, they could tip over from using wealth to participate in the market place to using wealth to control the lives of people most dependent upon him. He may also use his wealth to guard his ability to generate wealth which could approach something like war.

---

I asked you because I can't have a dialogue with myself.

It is not known that your thesis is accurate. One known reason why is that disadvantage of incumbency is a very real phenomenon in a free market. I've discussed this in the past with regards to Walmart and Amazon or Microsoft and Google, but it exists a million different ways. The TLDR is that incumbents have a disincentive to innovate outside of their business models. This naturally provides competitive space for disruptive innovations from others. This is why back when Amazon began rapidly subverting the Walmart business model, Walmart was powerless to stop it. Walmart's bread and butter is brick and mortar retail, and if it was to compete as directly with Amazon in online retail as it could, it would undermine its own bread and butter.

So, this is but one example of how the positive feedback loop you envision with regards to wealth accrual is struck by negative feedback.

Or we could just look at the wealth data itself. I forget the exact numbers but it's something like only 3% of the wealthiest family from a hundred years ago are still wealthy. The turnover and subversion of wealth in markets is high. Even the "unstoppable" juggernaut called Microsoft from less than a decade ago became a frantic underdog within just a couple years time. Out of nowhere, its vast market share plummeted from the uprising of unpredicted competitors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

Why governments will always exist:

In Anarchy, violence enjoys primacy. Anyone with an edge in violence will reap benefits in every other corner of life. The marketplace can not defeat Anarchy's legacy (States) nor can it defeat the incentive to be the most violent.

---

What happens when the incentive to not initiate force is greater than the incentive to do so? Meaning, what happens when the initiation of violence is less productive -- and thus less capable of generating wealth -- than the utility of security from the initiation of violence?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

Why States won't implement a sustained free market:

States must maintain internal stability to maintain its ability to wage war. The State has an incentive to reallocate its resources to maintain internal stability. A free market will mean reduced services to the least privileged of society which will lead to increased social unrest. A free market will also present members of the same tribe with stark examples of the haves-vrs-the-have-nots which will breed contempt and more social unrest. The State, therefore, has an incentive to be seen as providing a safety net and social securities. (Look at histories best examples of free markets - the US, Sinagpore, Hong Kong, a free market is societies sprint, not its marathon.)

---

Two things:

(1) A free market increases services. I'm not sure why you're saying otherwise. Also the perception of haves and have nots is built by the government policies that create such divergence and low social mobility in the first place.

(2) I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at, but if you're saying that free market societies tend towards state authoritarianism because of the perceptions people get from results of how economies naturally function, I disagree. The US welfare state is, well, an accident. A technical thing happened and nobody knew the consequences it would cause with things like reliance on the government down the road. That technical thing is money monopoly i.e. the Federal Reserve.

The Federal Reserve then created the Great Depression (Yes, created. The Fed itself admitted back in the 00's that it did this). But because nobody (the public and most economists too) at the time did not realize that the cause of their disastrous economy was a money monopoly misbehaving, everybody blamed capitalists. This ushered in support for welfare and government authority over all things. As usual, markets are the solution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

This is not the medium by which what you want from them is addressed. The same is true for Feynman and Tyson. The equivalence is not false.

They are not citing data that only supports them. I'm not sure why you think they are, perhaps because you disagree with them so you assume they must be cherry picking. But the points they make come from analysis of all the available data. The stuff Friedman said is super consensus among the experts, and the stuff Sowell said is a theory that he thinks the data (all the data) support.

---

Economics is Philosophy.

Pick up any real science and see the difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

What happens when the incentive to not initiate force is greater than the incentive to do so? Meaning, what happens when the initiation of violence is less productive -- and thus less capable of generating wealth -- than the utility of security from the initiation of violence?

---

Nothing happens because it's impossible. I remember some dude said that Europe would never go to war because they were all making too much money - smash cut - WW1 - WW2.

Quote:

---

Two things:

(1) A free market increases services. I'm not sure why you're saying otherwise. Also the perception of haves and have nots is built by the government policies that create such divergence and low social mobility in the first place.

(2) I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at, but if you're saying that free market societies tend towards state authoritarianism because of the perceptions people get from results of how economies naturally function, I disagree. The US welfare state is, well, an accident. A technical thing happened and nobody knew the consequences it would cause with things like reliance on the government down the road. That technical thing is money monopoly i.e. the Federal Reserve.

---

No, you're just so deep in one single avenue of human philosophical study that you can't see the wood for the trees - is my point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

The US welfare state is, well, an accident.

---

An accident that happens every time. See US, Hong Kong, Singapore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

Economics is Philosophy.

Pick up any real science and see the difference.

---

Back to this then?

Just because controlled experimentation is easier in chemistry than in economics doesn't give chemistry science status and economics not-science status.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

Nothing happens because it's impossible. I remember some dude said that Europe would never go to war because they were all making too much money - smash cut - WW1 - WW2.

---

People say all sorts of stuff. His claim was not a reasonable claim purely on the premise. To borrow his phrasing, people actually weren't making that much money.

Quote:

---

No, you're just so deep in one single avenue of human philosophical study that you can't see the wood for the trees - is my point.

---

I spend a decent deal of my reading time on what you say I do not.

Quote:

---

An accident that happens every time. See US, Hong Kong, Singapore.

---

Now that we have that settled, no reason to understand it. Let's just stick to determinism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Now that we have that settled, no reason to understand it.

---

Sure, why does it seem to happen every time?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

Sure, why does it seem to happen every time?

---

First off, "it" doesn't exactly happen every time. An element of authoritarianism is that it is authoritarian over all, else it isn't fully authoritarianism, which is a type of contradiction in definition. Yet elements of various societies show a different amount of authoritarianism in different ways. This shows it isn't necessarily a necessity, and instead more like emergent from other elements that may or may not be natural, so to speak.

One of the main options I think to be most credible is that the state is trending. When it's the trend, it tends to stay the trend. For example, one use of clothing is to hide tits. This isn't exactly a natural state of human life, but it's something we're always going to do partly because we always do it.

Even if you and I were gods and we had proven that the state is not the natural way of humankind, any reasonable assessment of the future we could provide would include a trending towards the state by human civilizations for quite some time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Just because controlled experimentation is easier in chemistry than in economics doesn't give chemistry science status and economics not-science status.

---

This is true.

There are many other reasons that economics is not a hard scientific field.

Science is a rigorous methodology by which we, as individuals, strive never to be misled, even by ourselves. It is a system which produces falsifiable statements, which have not been shown to be false, under any known, verifiable, repeatable method. This gives rise to a rigorous use of language which demands thorough definition for each key term under investigation. Ultimately, science is about making clear definitions into clear statements, and not being fooled into believing a false statement.

The benefit of science is to make predictions which bear out future observations. The ultimate goal of science is to allow humans to predict the future, insofar as the future can be predicted.

Whether or not a field can produce controlled experiments can be a severe impediment to establishing a rigid language, with precise definitions. This can make the process of producing falsifiable statements cumbersome.

***
I think it's fair to say that, no matter how old the texts on the subject are, the field of Economics is in its infancy. There is no widespread agreement among economists (even nationally, let alone globally) on anything beyond the most loose and broad definitions. There is still rich debate on the most fundamental principles. I.e. economists agree that supply and demand are things, and that a graph of a supply-demand curve is representative of reality. However, the level of uncertainty in the specific shape of the curve and how it has/will change over time is generally off the charts for any practical (predictive) application.

There's nothing wrong with being in the baby steps of understanding the beast that is the entire notion of "understanding the movement of resources, what motivates humans to do so, and the consequences of such."

What's wrong is claiming that these initial statements have undergone the same level of widespread scrutiny as chemistry. What's wrong is making predictions which do not bear out future observations, then using the same data and theory to explain that the conclusion was implied anyway. This is what makes it a soft science.

A hard science must produce deterministic results. If the outcome is not as predicted, then either more data must be incorporated or the theory needs to be changed or both.

Economics may someday be considered a hard science, but right now, it's just not. This is in no way a disparaging remark about economists. It means they've grabbed the tail of a much more elusive dragon than that of a physicist or chemist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

What's wrong is claiming that these initial statements have undergone the same level of widespread scrutiny as chemistry.

---

I've never said this and I don't think anybody has. The level of certainty in economics is less than in chemistry. My comments focus on dispelling the suggestion that this means there is little certainty in economics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

I've never said this and I don't think anybody has. The level of certainty in economics is less than in chemistry. My comments focus on dispelling the suggestion that this means there is little certainty in economics.

---

That's not the reason to believe there is little certainty in economics.

This is:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Economists agree that supply and demand are things, and that a graph of a supply-demand curve is representative of reality. However, the level of uncertainty in the specific shape of the curve and how it has/will change over time is generally off the charts for any practical (predictive) application.

What's wrong is making predictions which do not bear out future observations, then using the same data and theory to explain that the conclusion was implied anyway. This is what makes it a soft science.

---

When I say uncertainty above, I mean that different economists emphasize different elements in a system to draw conclusions about supply and demand. When they apply these conclusions to a graph, they produce many different curves. There is no conclusive argument for which curve best represents the reality.

They can go back, after the fact and find the graphs which actually made reasonable predictions which eventually were observed. They use this to produce new theories about how to make predictions. However, this process has not yet led to a clearly stated, falsifiable theory which makes observable predictions.

To the extent that economists can predict any changes in economics, there is merit to calling it a science.
However, I have yet to see any convincing evidence that this occurs on anything but a micro-scale. I.e. A mighty clever entrepreneur may be able to see an economic niche unfilled and then fill it. However, the economists can not tell us where or when the niches occur, nor what is needed to fill them. At most they can give a broad description of niches.

I have yet to see any state-level predictions which bear the predicted results. I see a whole lot of IF A, THEN B, but then C happens and the economists say, "This was always an option." Fine. It was an option. Then the original statement was either a lie or ill-conceived propaganda. Neither gives the field any credibility as a science.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

When I say uncertainty above, I mean that different economists emphasize different elements in a system to draw conclusions about supply and demand. When they apply these conclusions to a graph, they produce many different curves. There is no conclusive argument for which curve best represents the reality.

---

That's definitely the case, but it's not relevant to what people argue about with regards to economics. What we don't know is at what exact values the supply and demand curves lie, but we do know that the theory explaining why the curves exist are sound. And we know their general areas. Even physics has some "problems" like this. Ain't nobody know where that particle is. You know its probability range though (if that's how to put it).

Quote:

---

They can go back, after the fact and find the graphs which actually made reasonable predictions which eventually were observed. They use this to produce new theories about how to make predictions. However, this process has not yet led to a clearly stated, falsifiable theory which makes observable predictions.

---

There are uncountable falsifiable predictions in economics. Don't let people tell you that it's all guesswork. What economists can't rely on is double blind experimentation (though they technically could, it's not realistic to do so). However, there have been uncountable natural experiments that all show the same thing. For example, earlier we were talking about how price controls affect supply and demand. The theory on this is under total economic consensus because of how robust the findings have been. Price controls have been tried many, many, many times all throughout the world, and every time, where those controls act mostly like independent variables, the movement along the curves, the changes in consumer and producer surpluses, and other relevant factors, behave as predicted.

The field is not weak. An example of regular experimentation is Federal Reserve statements. Some economists make predictions and assess results of market movement based "merely" on what the Fed says. These are very falsifiable things. The stock market reacts in very predictable ways to Fed announcements. The problem is that there is sooooooooooo much noise in the airwaves since the vast majority of people who claim to have economic opinions are not economists (hey me included).

If you watch the popular media, you'd think that the stock market is just one giant pile of bullshit that nobody understands, but the reality is that it's very robust and useful for economists. Some economists believe prediction markets are so robust that they should be used to operate monetary policy (thus eliminating central banks' monetary duties and the millions of hours of brainpower that go into them).

Quote:

---

At most they can give a broad description of niches.

---

Is that even a problem? Economics is by nature broad descriptions. I mean, maybe you're not into that. I am. Macro is my thing.

Quote:

---

I have yet to see any state-level predictions which bear the predicted results. I see a whole lot of IF A, THEN B, but then C happens and the economists say, "This was always an option."

---

Yeah, bad economists. There are certainly some who do this (guys like Krugman), but most don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Even physics has some "problems" like this. Ain't nobody know where that particle is. You know its probability range though (if that's how to put it).

---

I feel like this statement is going to get me in trouble. What I meant is that behavior of particles isn't modeled to the point where we have the types of certainty that we do in other aspects of physics. What I'm referring to is the electron probability cloud thing, but I'm aware that there are many other uncertainties in quantum physics as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

I feel like this statement is going to get me in trouble.

---

It is. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

What I meant is that behavior of particles isn't modeled to the point where we have the types of certainty that we do in other aspects of physics.

---

You're so right, but for the perfectly wrong reason.

The "other aspects of physics" struggle to get 7 to 10 significant digits (decimal places) in agreement with theoretical values on their best days, in their best labs. QM makes predictions that are accurate to over 35 sig figs. In short the amount of certainty we have that QM is a description of reality is like a million billion billion times more than "other aspects of physics."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

What I'm referring to is the electron probability cloud thing, but I'm aware that there are many other uncertainties in quantum physics as well.

---

All of which is - amazingly - defined, quantified, and predictable.

Note that you can certainly know the location of any particle to arbitrary precision. However, in so manipulating the wave function (particle), you impart a more and more uncertain amount of momentum to it. Photons are tricksy, with their well-defined momentum, but QM describes the uncertainties in photons, too.

The fact is that uncertainty is the nature of the universe. Or at least, any definitive certainty which underlies the uncertainty manifests as predictable uncertainties, which are equivalent to those described by QM.

This is not in disagreement among physicists.

The misnomer that this kind of uncertainty somehow implies an inability of QM to predict observations is demonstrably false.

***
There are many contested ideas at the cutting edge of physics, but QM uncertainties are not among them.

You'd be better suited to talk about string theorists than QM.

I'd be hard pressed to draw distinctions between the methods and results of string theory vs economics.

I'm sorry wuf I'm pretty much exhausted with this for the time being.

I'll say this though. British politics has got really lively this last month. I dunno how much coverage it's getting beyond our shores, but Labour have just appointed a hard left guy as their leader. It's really sparked debate here about left wing politics. Most of it is not complimentary.

I think socilaism will be getting a lot more analysis here over the coming years, which is a good thing, because left leaning people like myself will begin to get a better understanding of the consequences of such an economic idealogy.

For now I stand behind my principles. I'm not that stubborn that I can't accept when I'm wrong. But what Corbyn says really resonates with me. He talks about renationalisation of the railways, part nationalisation of energy companies, reintrodcution of grants instead of tuition fees, greater welfare, and, crucially, a much restrained defence policy, including getting rid of nukes and a significant reduction of British involvement in foreign wars. If he can convince me he can pay for the welfare and education without crashing the economy, then he'll get my vote. He's got four and a half years to convince me.

First of all, we've got an EU referendum. I've already decided how I'm voting there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

The misnomer that this kind of uncertainty somehow implies an inability of QM to predict observations is demonstrably false.

---

I don't mean to imply that. Degree of uncertainty doesn't mean it's uncertain, at least as far as we use "uncertain" colloquially. I brought it up because a chunk of what we (me you rilla) end up debating on this forum involves the idea that economics is just so incredibly uncertain that it's useless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I'm sorry wuf I'm pretty much exhausted with this for the time being.

I'll say this though. British politics has got really lively this last month. I dunno how much coverage it's getting beyond our shores, but Labour have just appointed a hard left guy as their leader. It's really sparked debate here about left wing politics. Most of it is not complimentary.

I think socilaism will be getting a lot more analysis here over the coming years, which is a good thing, because left leaning people like myself will begin to get a better understanding of the consequences of such an economic idealogy.

For now I stand behind my principles. I'm not that stubborn that I can't accept when I'm wrong. But what Corbyn says really resonates with me. He talks about renationalisation of the railways, part nationalisation of energy companies, reintrodcution of grants instead of tuition fees, greater welfare, and, crucially, a much restrained defence policy, including getting rid of nukes and a significant reduction of British involvement in foreign wars. If he can convince me he can pay for the welfare and education without crashing the economy, then he'll get my vote. He's got four and a half years to convince me.

First of all, we've got an EU referendum. I've already decided how I'm voting there.

---

I trust the Brits can do the right thing.

Do you think monopolies are good?

No I don't think monopolies are good, because they concentrate wealth while stifling competition.

Do the right thing? You mean stay in the EU? What is more important to you as an American wuf? Sovereignty or trade?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

No I don't think monopolies are good, because they concentrate wealth while stifling competition.

---

Are the government's various monopolies good?

Quote:

---

Do the right thing? You mean stay in the EU? What is more important to you as an American wuf? Sovereignty or trade?

---

What are the terms?

The EU is a good idea in as much as it is for open trade and free movement, but the common currency is a failure and centralization is a disaster. What are you guys voting on? What are the concerns?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

I don't mean to imply that. Degree of uncertainty doesn't mean it's uncertain, at least as far as we use "uncertain" colloquially. I brought it up because a chunk of what we (me you rilla) end up debating on this forum involves the idea that economics is just so incredibly uncertain that it's useless.

---

I certainly don't think economics is useless. If anything, I think it's ridiculously complex, and even though a lot of diligent and intelligent people have been working on it, and some of them are quite well-funded, the ability to reduce the complexity is still very limited.

I also think that you kind of misunderstand science it when you call economics a science.

Whether or not something is considered "a science" has no relation to the fact that the scientific process is a part of literally every field of study, or at least can be.

Whether or not something is a science has no relation to its utility to humans. Whether or not mathematics is a science is a funny debate, and it all hinges on the fact that theoretical mathematicians and theoretical physicists do very similar work, with only slightly different motivations.

So when I disagree with your assessment that economics is a science, that is not an implication that economics is useless... just different.

If nothing else, you've shown me that the scientific process is more a part of economics than I was aware.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

So when I disagree with your assessment that economics is a science, that is not an implication that economics is useless... just different.

---

Eh it's mostly Rilla who does this. I mean, maybe he doesn't, but it certainly presents like he does.

Quote:

---

I also think that you kind of misunderstand science it when you call economics a science.

---

Science is a way of thinking. Wherever you make hypotheses, predictions, experiment, assess, and repeat (or at least attempt to do so within whatever confines you're given), I call it science. Different types of experimentation yield much better results though. I'm fine with terms like "hard science" and "soft science" to describe the difference between ones that utilize highly controlled studies and ones that can't so much.

What I don't like is how common it is to call the hard sciences like what you learn in academia when getting a bachelors of science as science and not calling, well, everything else you study a science, like sociology. Sociology is technically a social science, but my point is that people don't think of it as a science, and THAT causes all sorts of problems where people think they can make up some bullshit and it be good sociology. Guesses are never acceptable answers in STEM but they are sometimes acceptable answers in just about everything else. It's ridiculous.

Frankly, it's silly that STEM is harder than everything else. There's no reason social sciences and humanities and business should be easier than the hard sciences, but they are easier because so many people treat them unscientifically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Are the government's various monopolies good?

---

They're better than private monopolies for reasons I've already stated... governments are accountable so long as they are democratic. An ideal government monopoly is not interested in makiong profits for shareholders, and instead is focussed on delivering an essential service which is of net gain to the economy. That's the principle that should be at work here. In practise it doesn't work like that, but that's the principle I'm behind.

Quote:

---

What are the terms?

---

It's an in/out referendum. There are no terms.

Quote:

---

The EU is a good idea in as much as it is for open trade and free movement, but the common currency is a failure and centralization is a disaster. What are you guys voting on? What are the concerns?

---

The concerns that people in the UK have (and across Europe) are that the EU is undemocratic (they are "elected" by parliament, not elected by the people), and that it compromises the sovereignty of member states. Our tax affairs are increasingly controlled by Brussels, along with many other laws. The only good things that Europe has given us is the Human Rights Bill, but there's literally nothing stopping us from having our own Bill that mirrors theirs, and trade agreements, which can be negotiated from outside. Our membership in the EU makes it difficult for us to negotiate free trade with nations like China or USA, because we have continental obligations.

As for free moevment, well that doesn't exist for us like it does for the the mainland. We need passports to leave the country. I don't see this as a problem though. Aside from passport controls, law abiding citizens generally have no problem travelling Europe. But free movement is hardly essential, when weighted against democracy and sovereignty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

They're better than private monopolies for reasons I've already stated... governments are accountable so long as they are democratic. An ideal government monopoly is not interested in makiong profits for shareholders, and instead is focussed on delivering an essential service which is of net gain to the economy. That's the principle that should be at work here. In practise it doesn't work like that, but that's the principle I'm behind.

---

Keep in mind that you're idealizing government and deglamorizing enterprise.

Quote:

---

The concerns that people in the UK have (and across Europe) are that the EU is undemocratic (they are "elected" by parliament, not elected by the people), and that it compromises the sovereignty of member states. Our tax affairs are increasingly controlled by Brussels, along with many other laws. The only good things that Europe has given us is the Human Rights Bill, but there's literally nothing stopping us from having our own Bill that mirrors theirs, and trade agreements, which can be negotiated from outside. Our membership in the EU makes it difficult for us to negotiate free trade with nations like China or USA, because we have continental obligations.

As for free moevment, well that doesn't exist for us like it does for the the mainland. We need passports to leave the country. I don't see this as a problem though. Aside from passport controls, law abiding citizens generally have no problem travelling Europe. But free movement is hardly essential, when weighted against democracy and sovereignty.

---

If that's the case, then out all day. I have seen no examples in history of giving up legal sovereignty making things better for a region. There are many where doing so makes things much worse. Hey, the non-Germany, non-France EU is an example of that!

Belgium, Netherlands, and Northern Italy also possibly benefit, but that's about it. The EU has been an unmitigated disaster for the Mediterranean countries. It has been neutral for the Scandinavian ones (although it will eventually be bad for them), and probably helpful for the Eastern European countries (but still will eventually hurt them).

WW3 is Germany economically taking over the continent through creeping federalization. Funny that.

I don't think there will be a war in Europe as a result of this misadventure. There will be economic collapses though. Spain will collapse if Catalonia go it alone, keep an eye on that if you're interested in European economics. That region of Spain is the economic powerhouse of the country. If they go alone, Spain will lose around E15b a year in lost tax revenue. But that's exactly the problem... the Catalonians are sick of paying more tax to Spain than they get back in services.

There's a similar perecption here, that the EU does not provide value for money. The only argument that holds any water is that it might have a catastrophic impact on many businesses here. But if our economy is reliant on being a member state of the EU, we've already lost our sovereignty, and should take it back at all costs.

I'm not saying war will break out. I'm making a connection between an element of Germany's goals in WW1 and WW2 (dominating the continent) and what Germany is doing with the EU (dominating the continent).

I see. Then those comparisons are legitimate. Whatever can be said about Hitler, dude had a solid economic plan. Merkel has a sound economic plan too. I definitely see comparisons.

In fact there's so many comparisons between the two. If I had to choose which one I'd like to see take a shower, I'd have a really difficult decision.

Apparently Silvio Berlusconi once described Merkel as "an unfuckable lardarse".

I hope that's true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Whatever can be said about Hitler, dude had a solid economic plan.

---

That solid economic plan would have put you in prison for smoking weed. And not the "it's illegal so it means prison" way but the "they're going into everybody's homes and eradicating the immoral" way.

Hitler wasn't good economics. He was corporatism. Citizens existed to serve the state. They were required to be ubiquitous and morally upright, and to deny their pleasures so that they could be good workers to further the national agenda. An agenda that happened to depend on conquest.

These aren't your people, Ong. You're a libertine. The state is antithetical to the libertine.

I wasn't being entirely serious there, apologies if that didn't come across tongue in cheek. I was attempting, rather poorly, to compare Hitler and Merkel, for the sake of amusement.

Quote:

---

These aren't your people, Ong. You're a libertine. The state is antithetical to the libertine.

---

I'm an anarchist, deep down. However, I'll be the first to admit that a transition from the status quo to true anarchy would frighten the fucking life out of me. I just think the end result will eventually be a more natural and peaceful existence for humankind.

You're the first pro-government anarchist I've come across.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

You're the first pro-government anarchist I've come across.

---

I'm not pro-government. I'm a lot more pro-government that pro-corporations though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I'm not pro-government. I'm a lot more pro-government that pro-corporations though.

---

So you're not pro-government because you want government to stop corporations? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but okay.

What about the fact that mega corporations get their disproportionate power from government creating laws on their behalf?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

So you're not pro-government because you want government to stop corporations? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but okay.

What about the fact that mega corporations get their disproportionate power from government creating laws on their behalf?

---

My problem with government is the form of government we have. Its sole duty should be to serve the masses. Government here doesn't do that... it serves its own interests. I would be pro-government if such government was ideal. But power corrupts, I'm unconvinced government can be ideal.

The fact that mega corps get power from corrupt governments serving their interests is my problem with capitalism and my problem with government. Again, it comes down to the nature of government.

It's not even that I want government to stop corporations. It's more that I want someone or something to, and government is best placed to do so because it has a tax base and thus huge potential capital, plus it has power in the form of a mandate.

Of course, one needs a non-corrupt government. Has one ever existed anywhere?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

My problem with government is the form of government we have. Its sole duty should be to serve the masses. Government here doesn't do that... it serves its own interests. I would be pro-government if such government was ideal. But power corrupts, I'm unconvinced government can be ideal.

---

You're idealizing government and deglamorizing capitalism. You're looking at government and saying "I see all these potential positive things" and looking at capitalism and saying "all I see is negative potential."

Quote:

---

The fact that mega corps get power from corrupt governments serving their interests is my problem with capitalism and my problem with government. Again, it comes down to the nature of government.

---

Good news, that's not capitalism, at least not market capitalism. You can technically call it state capitalism, but that's using a definition of capitalism that we don't normally use.

Quote:

---

It's not even that I want government to stop corporations. It's more that I want someone or something to, and government is best placed to do so because it has a tax base and thus huge potential capital, plus it has power in the form of a mandate.

---

First off, government's mandate is to itself, not the people. We tell ourselves stories that the government has a mandate from the people, but the facts say otherwise. The state's primary goal is to protect the state. This is why the state is above the law. When agents of the state are said to be acting in the interests of the state, what is illegal for the wards of the state (you and me) becomes legal for agents of the state. Two examples are how killing in war is not murder and cops can break traffic laws when engaging state priorities.

Additionally, when we think of who has the greater mandate to its constituents, corporations have far more for their consumers than government does for its citizens. We have seen this fact manifest in every aspect of our society already. The companies you choose to do business with treat you much, much, much better than your government does. The economic theory for why this reality emerges in a market is that because consumption is a choice, producers have to convince people that consumption of their goods are worth their while. Government does not have to do any of this because it takes your money at gunpoint. It then gives it to other people and gives you some money from others and says it's doing you a favor. The state is a secular religion. A lot of atheists think they're smarter than everybody else for seeing through the false deities, but the truth is that they're just as "dumb" as everybody else when they uphold the god of their secular religion.

So, what you're proposing is an entity that is far more powerful than any corporations, that has even less of a "mandate" to its constituents, to be the authority to control the corporations (and you).

Quote:

---

Of course, one needs a non-corrupt government. Has one ever existed anywhere?

---

We do ourselves no favors by calling the innate function of good government "corruption". Most of the stuff that people call corruption today is actually the government acting exactly the way it's supposed to. Government officials have constituencies. Those constituencies lobby the officials for certain laws. Those officials then pass those laws. This is how government is SUPPOSED to work. But the unintended consequences of this is thousands of different subsets of the constituencies getting special treatment. This includes you and me and everybody from the poor to the rich. The rich don't even get more special treatment from the government in the first place. The various middle class special interest groups are the ones who end up getting the most "corruption" from their governments.

It is absolutely important to understand that what people say is corrupt government behavior is not corruption whatsoever, but instead how the system is supposed to function. Let's not blame dark boardrooms for the problems caused by the peoples' support for a dysfunctional system.

Not talking about anyone in particular in this thread (not even you, OngBonga), but I think it's funny when people act like "corruption" isn't completely natural.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

I'm sure you know. The most fundamental is basic necessities. After that comes various status and pleasure things.

---

I think I know, and it is definitely interesting to explore.

So what is the profit motive?

Is the profit motive what drives you to eat each day? Is the profit motive what drives you to shelter yourself from the elements? Is the profit motive what drives you to bond with others that want to bond with you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Not talking about anyone in particular in this thread (not even you, OngBonga), but I think it's funny when people act like "corruption" isn't completely natural.

---

Well it depends what you mean by "natural". Everything is natural one way or another.

Is corruption necessary for survival? Is it something that happens subconciously? I can accept "natural" in this context if the answer to either of those questions is "yes".

There are a few thumbs up posts in this thread, so I'll just do a broadcast thumbs up.

:thumb:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Well it depends what you mean by "natural". Everything is natural one way or another.

Is corruption necessary for survival? Is it something that happens subconsciously? I can accept "natural" in this context if the answer to either of those questions is "yes".

---

I think the answer to both of those questions can be yes, and I think that it's also fun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

I think I know, and it is definitely interesting to explore.

So what is the profit motive?

Is the profit motive what drives you to eat each day? Is the profit motive what drives you to shelter yourself from the elements? Is the profit motive what drives you to bond with others that want to bond with you?

---

I have it the other way around. Desire drives the profit motive since profits are what acquire desire. The profit motive doesn't drive you to shelter yourself; the desire to shelter yourself drives the profit motive.

So it's really a secondary motive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

So it's really a secondary motive.

---

In my worldview, there are two parts to the profit motive. The first is the short-term in the sense of being able to provide for those needs that you listed earlier (hunger, thirst, shelter, etc.). This is the same as the motive for cavemen to go out and pick berries or whatever the hell they did, and it's tied to the immediate harvest of resources. It's also tied to being driven to reproduce and the behaviors that are needed for that. This is largely genetic/inherent/nature/etc.

The second is the long-term, and I'm of the opinion that it didn't really become a "thing" for most people until the agricultural revolution, which started ~12,000 years ago. We haven't had time to really evolve all that much since then, so I don't think there's that much of a genetic component to wanting to stockpile shit. That makes me think that it's purely a cultural/logical/"nurture" component, especially since you see virtually no other species do this anywhere near the level that we do.

Spoiler: Show

To tie this into my usual schtick, this has created two sexual strategies for relationships between men and women. The long-term side (ie: accumulation of resources) corresponds to locking down a provider male in a relationship where he will provide for her and her offspring, and these are what are classified as the "beta" behaviors for men. The short-term side (ie: the genetic component) consists of behaviors that make her want to fuck thanks to how much more time evolution had to work its magic, and these are what are classified as the "alpha" behaviors for men. A woman will seek out both as much as she can, and the ideal man will provide both in the same package.

Now here's where they are tied together. One of the things that we're drawn to do emotionally from the first part of the profit motive is to dominate other people socially and rank higher in the social pecking order. One of the ways that we do that now is by the accumulation of resources, so it has both a logical and emotional component.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

So it's really a secondary motive.

---

yeah i dont know of any who have claimed otherwise.

I don't know what's going on, but I find myself agreeing with about everything spoony has been posting recently.

***
I find it impossible to understand the existence of governments as an "unnatural" event that is happening by chance - or that government is something done "to" humans and not "by" humans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

or that government is something done "to" humans and not "by" humans.

---

It's both.

the state exists by will of humans, but it also has its own agenda indifferent to that will. this isn't to say the state is sentient -- clearly it's not -- but that the bodies that make up the state often end up with different agendas than that of the people.

just look at foreign policy to get this. US foreign policy has very little to do with "the will of the people" and very much to do with the will of the government agents engaging in foreign policy decisions. if you ask voters what the US government's policy on putin is, virtually every answer you get will be different than if you ask that question of the agents dealing with putin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renton

Let me start by saying I don't want this to be a poo-flinging thread or a rehash of old discussions. I've just become inundated with anti-capitalism stuff lately and its been kind of driving me crazy so I wanted to talk to some smart left-minded folks which I am assuming is nearly everyone in this forum.

First, a few questions:

1) Is it morally wrong to pay someone 1 dollar an hour? If yes, why? If no, what is a set of conditions where it becomes wrong to pay someone 1 dollar an hour?

It depends. Is everyone else making 75 cents an hour for the same work at other places? Then you are one helluva nice person. If, however, similar work pays 2.50 other places...your an azz, most likely. That being said, one buck an hour is fine if its a fair wage for a fair days work.

2) I am a gold miner. I spend five million dollars to buy five potential mining sites (at one million dollars per site). I am speculating that one of those sites will have 5.5 million dollars worth of gold thus my expected profit is half a million minus overhead. I spend 200k on mining crews and equipment to speculate these mines, paying each of them 10 dollars an hour. Four of them are dead ends, but luckily the fifth has a gold vein that I sell for 7 million. I have profited 1.8 million dollars. Am I wrong?

Yes. Risking 5 million for 1.8 million profit is silly. That's not near enough profit. Is it immoral to make any profit? Hell no.

3) I am an entrepreneur. I invest one million dollars in a restaurant. I estimate that I will lose this investment about 80% of the time and 20% of the time I will have a successful restaurant that will repay the investment x5 in a few years. Luckily, it is a hugely successful restaurant that nets 1.5 million dollars in the first year. How much should I pay the bus-boy? I paid him the minimum wage. Am I wrong?

Again, it would be great to pay him a little over the industry standard, but that's minimum wage. And those jobs are not supposed to be what you get to support a family of four; but that is on them, not you.

4) I was a big fan of Back to the Future 2 so I decided to invent the Hoverboard. My Hoverboard company of which I am the primary share holder nets 500 million dollars a year, which I can spend or recapitalize at my discretion. How much money is it ok for me to take for myself?

Between 500 million and none. How much profit needs to be re-invested to maintain the company's slot in the world?

5) Is profit wrong? That one is obviously a tongue-in-cheek rhetorical, but seriously, what are some sets of conditions under which profit becomes wrong? How much profit is too much, and why?

---

The problem here is the socialist left constantly act as if "any profit = greed, and that's bad" (Unless it's them doing it, of course. Then it's just "smart business") Don't confuse the two, PROFIT and GREED.

If your picking another new Jet for your personal fleet and paying for it by skipping Christmas bonuses for the employees of your company, then your greedy.

However, morally wrong to you and I is not morally wrong, period. We try to follow loose guidelines. But what is greed to one is not enough for another, and we should not judge it without knowing all the facts, if possible. What looks like greed is often explained to be that by someone who does not know their azz from their elbow about a business, but thinks a million dollar profit is greedy. Is it? Not when 3/4 of it has to be reinvested.

Im bored waiting for time warner to not be shity, so I'm reviving this thread. You can thank time warner for that!

I saw an add on Facebook featuring a Starbucks Coffee maker machine, and it made me think of our minimum wage arguments. Was that this thread? Idk, it is now.

It made me think of two things tho. 1st, even tho most minimum wages were stagnant, this improvement happened and came to be. It's been my opinion that regardless of the minimum wage, technology will continue to chug forward and find cheaper ways of doing old tasks. Starbucks and others are almost destined to go this route, since it means you just need a security guard and an operator to run the store.

However, it also made me think of the second point. We probably are paying min wage employees way too much. But I wonder what the real effect of that is? With a fast food joint on every corner in even the most sparse locations, we need ppl to work these jobs. But it's all unskilled. It's a crazy amount of unskilled labor. And the unskilled do want to work these jobs. What will happen when this isn't the case anymore? What happens when, as technology chugs on, the demand is no longer there?

I feel like people are stuck in a situation where they don't really see what life is about. They get bombarded with college, and part time jobs, and whatever, and then they miss the bigger picture. They miss that at some point, they need to be worth enough to support a family. That ww are still in the middle ages when it comes to working. You need a skill, and u need to market that skill. But it's hard to see that when there is this giant plan B hanging around. "Worst case, I work at McDonald's for awhile...".

Idk. I'm rambling but I'm bored as fuck waiting and it got me thinking about why it took me so long to realize that I needed to create value. Schooling probably contributed to that, since it's all nonsense like life is a game you can afford to just sit out of.

Here's a question. In spite of college, the internet, and much more free time...is our generation less skilled than prior ones?

I intended this to be no longer than six lines, as I don't have much time right now. But no can do. It's my English professor continually telling me to explain.


You're on to something. One unintended consequence of minimum wage is to reduce incentives to develop skills. If you work hard and get good education to increase your salary and a noticeable minimum wage boost comes along, you see the value of your hard work and education diminish while the value of if you had remained less skilled increases. This isn't to say that minimum wage jobs are not difficult. In fact they become even more difficult as employers are forced to pay more. You gotta cook a whole lot more burgers to remain employed at $15 than $5.

Which is an answer to your question about what is lost by not having lower wages. People with super low skills and even super bad work ethic can make more money, provide more value, and live happier lives if they are allowed to work for a wage that reflects the value they provide.


Note on Time Warner: municipalities and unions have played an unmatched role in having governments use laws and regulatory bureaucracies to make it illegal or cost-prohibitive or both for competitors to enter the ISP space. We see this dynamic in real time in that Google has the capital and motive to enter the ISP place in every area of the country, yet the company is moving slowly and only able to enter markets with super low barriers to entry. It's gonna be a long ass time before Fiber gets into heavy municipalities, and it's because of the law and bureaucracies, not free market behavior.

It can also be noted that unions and municipalities aren't the only players in creation of this cronyism. The incumbent ISPs themselves have also played. It's natural for entities to support what's in their best interests. This is why free markets aren't the same as "pro-business". Businesses are individually as crony as they can be, because it's in their interests. The reason free marketeers like me talk so much about government is because the same principle applies to the average voters, where it is in our interests to vote for policies and politicians who deteriorate this capacity for business cronyism.


As for the skill question, in an absolute sense, we are probably vastly more skilled. In a relative sense, I would argue we are less skilled. I put this blame on the shifts towards academic education and away from on-the-job training. This has made us far more "educated" but still not much more skilled at the jobs we enter. There is a good deal of overlap between education and skills of course, but it's not 1-to-1. Take this example, my father has been a construction contractor his entire adult life. It's a highly technical and skill-based field, and he learned 0% of it through an education system. Contrast this to me, who is going to college to get a degree to open up doors in business fields. The vast majority of what I learn in college is crap I don't use, won't ever use, have already forgotten, and is totally irrelevant to what I will eventually do.

The "more college" mantra we have going on is the opposite of what we need. People are remaining children into their mid-twenties these days and they enter the workforce about a decade behind what they would in a free market (and did back before the school system was federally centralized).

Quote:

---

Idk. I'm rambling but I'm bored as fuck waiting and it got me thinking about why it took me so long to realize that I needed to create value.

---

A plus plus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JKDS

Here's a question. In spite of college, the internet, and much more free time...is our generation less skilled than prior ones?

---

No, but you're asking the wrong question. Our generation is certainly exposed to more edifying stimuli per unit time. The average 30 year old today knows FAR more than the average 30 year old of yester-generation. The problem is that the market is not in need of people with an abundance of trivia knowledge. It is in need of whatever it demands. So, locally within populations, there are deficiencies in marketable skills in the current generation that perhaps didn't exist in the last generation. Thirty years ago, there was more demand for unskilled labor. There was more demand for trainable labor. Think of all the (actually quite lucrative) door to door vacuum cleaner salesman type jobs that existed in the 1980s that were supplanted by infomercials and eventually Amazon.

On the other hand, today there is much more demand for higher-on-Maslow's-pyramid type jobs. Think webmaster, 3d-modeler, video game designer, blogger, columnist, youtube ranter (ahem, content-creator). A lot of this stuff just emerged in the last 20 years and caught the unprepared among us off guard. Chiefly, people who dropped out of school or got degrees in unmarketable shit. Also, I think in this generation the job climate has been a lot less consistent than former generations were accustomed to. History bulls forward at an accelerating pace, and today's workers are a lot more rewarded for adapting with the changing dynamics. If you were adept at weaving baskets in the 1800s, you could be pretty sure that was going to be a profitable venture for decades or centuries to come. People in those days were named for their trades and did them for many generations. Today, there's a shaky transience to every job, and being a jack-of-all-trades is much more rewarded than being a specialist has been in centuries past.

Barry Schwartz blows Capitalism out of the fucking water.

https://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schw...dox_of_choice#

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

Barry Schwartz blows Capitalism out of the fucking water.

https://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schw...dox_of_choice#

---

Watched this ages ago. It's very good, but can't remember why. Going to re-watch this when I'm back to work next week.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

Barry Schwartz blows Capitalism out of the fucking water.

https://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schw...dox_of_choice#

---

This is an embittered man who laments the simple life of his memories, and rejects the simple life of today's children's memories.

At least he's got a pleasant sense of humor to cover up his obvious (and trite) disdain for the world he finds himself in.

His bit about bluejeans is a fine microcosm of his greater point. Even when he got the best fitting pair of jeans in his life, he was sad because they were different from his old jeans. He blames the sadness on the jeans - or rather the process by which he acquired what he wanted. All of this is because the companies who make jeans listened to the feedback of their customers and tried to make less uncomfortable jeans.

His message lacks recommendations for people to live in this morass he purports we find ourselves.
That hollow metaphor with the fish bowl at the end doesn't actually say or mean anything and is full of "do this, but not too much" w/o identifying any sense of what he means by "this" or "too much."

***
My thesis:
Some form of this guy has been around for at least 150,000 years in every culture of humans that ever existed.
His message:
"When I was young I had to try really hard to make sense of the world and to find a place and role that I could fill. Having done so, I relaxed my effort to make sense of the world, accepting my place in it. Then the god-damned world kept changing and now what I thought was my place is not what it was, and I'm uncomfortable."

His statement on the thesis for why the element of choice and freedom in capitalism creates welfare is incorrect. It is not "the more choice they have, the more freedom they have, the more welfare they have." Freedom of choice doesn't create welfare. Freedom of choice is a necessary backdrop for people to use other tools to create welfare. Freedom is the sample space. Events outside the sample space cannot happen. The more freedom, the more elements within the sample space that have the potential to be used to create welfare.

He says "we all know what's good about it, so I'm going to talk about what's bad about it" when referencing freedom of choice. No, we don't know what's good about it. In fact this is one of the most misunderstood concepts there is. The good of freedom is hardly available to be experienced on the micro level. Its good is found on the macro level, where it results in what looks like nothing other than magic. Light bulbs, showers, cars, phones, internet, tasty and abundant food, and a billion other things exist because of the invisible magic of freedom.

On his view that we have too many choices that they creates paralysis: we don't have too many choices. The brain does not handle a great deal of choice and it uses all sorts of tools to narrow those down to the normal amount that it evolved for. His list of ~145 salad dressings to choose from at the super market is disingenuous. Nobody chooses from 145 dressings. We choose from 2 or 3 on average, and our brains narrow down to that amount pretty easily through different parameters (like learned preferences, nutrition content, price, etc.). The ironic thing here is that if his claim was correct, stores wouldn't even be selling much variety in salad dressings in the first place since people would not be as apt or capable at purchasing them. If he was right, the economy would look unmistakably different than it currently does. We would see little choice and little variety because that would be a more cost-effective paradigm for producers.

Many of the examples he uses to make his point are not relevant. Nobody selects one salad dressing for all eternity.

He does have a good point about how expectations change based on available data. That's something nobody has successfully scratched the surface of, but it's not a counter to capitalism. It's a byproduct at most. Nobody says "if I wasn't married I wouldn't have to cook for this other person on occasion therefore I'd be better off not being married," but that's basically what he's saying within the context of capitalism.

There are about a dozen specific points I would like to make but this is already too long. I don't think it's correct to say that he has made a connection between these psychological elements and the modern world. Some of his examples are not that meaningful and some others are things that affect people regardless of the elements of their lives. I think his fundamental mistake is assuming the brain handles options differently than it does. He thinks that any new factor is weighed, when in reality they're just not. When Caveman Grog hunt food meat, he has thousands of different options for how to do it, but the choices he makes are actually between just a handful because the rest are all taken care of through heuristics and other mostly subconscious tools.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

This is an embittered man who laments the simple life of his memories, and rejects the simple life of today's children's memories.

At least he's got a pleasant sense of humor to cover up his obvious (and trite) disdain for the world he finds himself in.

His bit about bluejeans is a fine microcosm of his greater point. Even when he got the best fitting pair of jeans in his life, he was sad because they were different from his old jeans. He blames the sadness on the jeans - or rather the process by which he acquired what he wanted. All of this is because the companies who make jeans listened to the feedback of their customers and tried to make less uncomfortable jeans.

His message lacks recommendations for people to live in this morass he purports we find ourselves.
That hollow metaphor with the fish bowl at the end doesn't actually say or mean anything and is full of "do this, but not too much" w/o identifying any sense of what he means by "this" or "too much."

***
My thesis:
Some form of this guy has been around for at least 150,000 years in every culture of humans that ever existed.
His message:
"When I was young I had to try really hard to make sense of the world and to find a place and role that I could fill. Having done so, I relaxed my effort to make sense of the world, accepting my place in it. Then the god-damned world kept changing and now what I thought was my place is not what it was, and I'm uncomfortable."

---

You hit on something I chose to not mention: he's a trained psychologist who seems to have not assessed his psychology in his anecdotes.

I'm pretty sure I agree with wuf on this one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

I'm pretty sure I agree with wuf on this one.

---

https://media.giphy.com/media/95ZYXmOCd9BBK/giphy.gif

I have huge choice paralysis, especially at restaurants

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JKDS

I have huge choice paralysis, especially at restaurants

---

It is not likely that this is caused by quantity of choices.

People will have the same paralysis of choice when they have only ten options as they do ten million. Give me ten million options and I'll cut that down to five lickety-split. People do that every time they shop on the internet.

The speaker's unintended thesis is that abundance is bad.

It's where we're not starving and we don't have to work for our food and we have ability to select, yet what we evolved to do is to always be at threat of starving, always work for our food, and always eat the most available product.

Sure, an unintended consequence of abundance may be an element of unhappiness, but that isn't a reason to call abundance bad. It's worse to starve, work hard for food, and only have one source. I say this, not because I don't think his point is a quality one, but that it's not a counter to capitalism. Capitalism isn't the problem, the human makeup is the problem. Capitalism has solved some of our biggest problems, which has allowed other natural human problems to emerge because they're no longer suppressed by the bigger problems.

Quote:

---

The closure of 19 schools in Edinburgh because of jerry-building under the Blue and Red Tories’ Private Finance Initiative, throws a stark light on the impact of the neo-con age on ordinary people.

The Private Finance Initiative was always a scam. It was yet another way to divert money from ordinary tax-payers to the super rich. Instead of schools and hospitals being built and paid for by the taxpayer, they were built and paid for by the bankers, hedge fund managers and other “financial services” sharks, giving state guaranteed returns averaging 7% from the taxpayer, when we now have negative interest rates. It is such a massive scam that every man, woman and child in the UK owes £3,000 to PFI financiers. Like so many far right Tory ideas, its most fervent practitioners were Gordon Brown and Tony Blair.

The “advantage” to government was the accounting trick of a reduction in state capital spending. The other “advantage” was that the private sector was supposed to have more “efficient” methods, due to the profit motive. So somebody in a local authority organising the building of a school from the desire to do the best for the children of their community, was less “efficient” than a hedge fund manager doing it to make the maximum cash. The result? Jerry-building.

I do not want to spend the rest of my life paying capitalist bloodsuckers through my savings. All PFI built infrastructure should be nationalised – without compensation. In doing so the taxpayer will be reclaiming assets to the value of only 10% of the money given to UK bankers in bailouts. Clawing back 10% of the cash we gave the bankers would be a damn good thing. If it caused the odd bank to crash, that is long overdue. Ordinary people’s deposits up to £75,000 are protected anyway. Those with more have it in Panama, the Caymans or the BVI, apparently.

---

Craig Murray, former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, turned activist/whistleblower.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archi...-nationalised/

I post this here for your reading pleasure because it kinda shits on the idea that capitalist interests, ie protfit, is a more effective incentive than the overall benefit of scoiety.

When this many schools close in a British city because of the standard of buildings that were made barely over a decade ago, it's a big fucking deal. This is disrupting the education of a lot of children in a major city at a critical time... some have exams next month. Closing these schools would not be a decision taken lightly.

This is what happenes when critical infrastructure is built by capitalists. Money becomes more important than people.

Nah. This is a problem of building codes and regulations.

It's not reasonable to expect everyone who needs a building to be an architect.

It is reasonable for all architects to make safe buildings. However, the definition of "safe" is always relative. There is no such thing as any activity being 100% safe. So it's up to a oversight body (within or beyond the architecture firm) to dictate what level of over-design (safety) is mandatory.


If the architects have met the necessary building codes, then made the lowest bid by barely scraping those codes... and the buyer took the lowest bid without understanding that it meant lower quality... then that's just people making bad choices... which is what the free market is all about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Craig Murray, former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, turned activist/whistleblower.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archi...-nationalised/

I post this here for your reading pleasure because it kinda shits on the idea that capitalist interests, ie protfit, is a more effective incentive than the overall benefit of scoiety.

When this many schools close in a British city because of the standard of buildings that were made barely over a decade ago, it's a big fucking deal. This is disrupting the education of a lot of children in a major city at a critical time... some have exams next month. Closing these schools would not be a decision taken lightly.

This is what happenes when critical infrastructure is built by capitalists. Money becomes more important than people.

---

His blog post is skimp on the details, so I can't address them.

But I can respond to this:

Quote:

---

I post this here for your reading pleasure because it kinda shits on the idea that capitalist interests, ie protfit, is a more effective incentive than the overall benefit of scoiety.

---

The net of history, data, and theory overwhelmingly shits on the idea that the desire for societal benefit is a better driver of actual benefit than self-interest.

A way for you to understand this in your personal life could be as follows: who do you think is better at making decisions that affect you: you or a bunch of legislators in Arkansas?

Another way to understand this is about the things you have that you like: your food, your clothes, your internet, your home, etc., are all things that were created through the self-interest profit method. Additionally, there is a wealth of data on societies that did away with self-interest, and they all (without exception) did not develop the wonderful things you enjoy today and actually lost much of what they already had.