These people are our future

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyric

The most common error in economic thought is assuming that there is a limited amount of wealth in the world.

---

I firmly stand, based upon what I've learned today, that there does not exist an infinite amount of wealth in this world.

Quote:

---

99% of the raw material for the tomatoes comes from the air. The plant uses the sun's energy to break carbon dioxide into its basic parts -- oxygen and carbon. It then builds its body and fruit from the carbon and exhausts oxygen into the atmosphere, where it is used by animals to breath.

1% of the tomato plant material comes from the soil, and that is replaced when the animals that eat the plant shit on the ground.

---

Or when the animals die, rot, and become ground.

Quote:

---

The tomato is produced using the energy of the sun (at near 100% efficiency!), which is also never lost; the energy is simply transferred into the tomato plant and can be used by animals as food calories, where food is chemically burned to yield energy for muscles.

---

Awesome, but still means it's a zero sum game. The positive is yielded by us, the negative is shouldered by an unimaginably huge, unimaginably powerful energy generator, imaginably far way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Human history has had ample experimentation with regards to this. The solitary man cannot get even remotely a fraction of the level of richness than is possible with the kind of society we live in today.

---

Correct. More people living together can grow exponentially more wealthy via trade and exchange of information and technology, but a solitary man can still create wealth alone on an island.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

Still, we both said yes to the idea of simplicity before tackling complexity, so let us test the robustness of this island construct without trying to fit in the awesome amount of people a true first/second world economy handles.

---

Apples and oranges

Trust me when I tell you that nobody does the "break it down into uncomplicated terms" like me. I'm not that smart, yet some people think I am, and that's because I incessantly break things down into as foundational of terms as I can, and this method reaps substantially more progression in understanding different issues than I could gather via other means.

The island world isn't some kind of foundational breakdown, but an irrelevancy. Besides, comparisons are a means to illustrate a point, not as a means to explain why the point is true

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyric

You might have to elaborate on this one. Economics (creation and exchange of stuff) is not dominated by where people think they fit into society's fictitious financial ladder.

These are the fantasies of political agendas. They are not reality.

---

I think you misunderstood my point, which was that even though the same word (economics) is used, a tiny island economy operates on a different enough paradigm than the massive global economy that comparing them in order to explain them is false.

Until you scale population, industry, and most everything else correctly, you can't really compare the two. One example: a small economy is systemically incapable of supporting an auto industry. You simply cannot mix and match facets of that economy with one that is actually capable of supporting an auto industry. They're just two entirely different things

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

The whole charity idea and how some very wealthy people have given away fortunes is rather skewy. It sounds good on the surface, but doesn't work systemically, and if it either did work or was even possible to work, results would almost definitely be different today.

Charity as anything other than a small segment of economic activity is unsustainable and has a much lower multiplier than other known factors like progressive taxation. The numbers also appear much bigger than they really are since most wealth is not as "disposable" as people may think. But really the lack of sustainability is an enormous negative with replacing strong policy with charity

---

This is nonsense. We are human beings. 90% of us will help others near us if we see them suffering or in need. Rich men generally realize that they get more pleasure from giving away the money instead of spending ever increasing amounts of it, and that makes sense -- after spending a billion dollars, the next 30 billion just doesn't seem so exciting. It would seem like more fun to help people, better the world, and create a lasting positive legacy for your family name.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Only a fraction of this stuff is possible for one man, would require virtually all his time, and the technology to do so is on the backs of preexisting society. Luxury and wealth really are not ideas that came about until societies began developing elaborately

---

You're missing the point. A man alone on an island can accumulate wealth with hard work, even without "technology on the backs of preexisting society."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyric

Correct. More people living together can grow exponentially more wealthy via trade and exchange of information and technology, but a solitary man can still create wealth alone on an island.

---

Yet still not price-able

This whole idea is seriously woo woo territory. It's like thinking you can cut a cell with a knife because you can cut skin with a knife

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyric

This is nonsense. We are human beings. 90% of us will help others near us if we see them suffering or in need.

---

I cannot summon up my usual douchey link but I recall a study which showed that even self-identified deeply caring people ignored obvious suffering because their schedule demanded that they be on stage 5 minutes ago.

I know that on the island, man will help a suffering man within ear-shout, but it becomes complicated with more details.

... gah, not making a point though I wish I were.

I don't believe that XX% of us will help others nearby is an applicable fact to a world where there are many many more people than our brains are capable of appreciating and sympathizing with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyric

This is nonsense. We are human beings. 90% of us will help others near us if we see them suffering or in need. Rich men generally realize that they get more pleasure from giving away the money instead of spending ever increasing amounts of it, and that makes sense -- after spending a billion dollars, the next 30 billion just doesn't seem so exciting. It would seem like more fun to help people, better the world, and create a lasting positive legacy for your family name.

---

Yet it doesn't actually happen

There goes that hypothesis

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

I want to ask: pretend there exists in this world a small country with no natural wealth but a completely free market, how would the world react?

But I'm not sure I even understand all the variables I'm supposed to hold constant or where possible answers could lead.

So instead, do you feel like a free market is a realizable construct in this world?

---

Hong Kong is one such experiment in free market economics. It began as a poor fishing village and grew to one of the richest countries in the world because of it enjoys almost non existent regulations on the free market.

I would post a video but the software won't allow it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyric

Correct. More people living together can grow exponentially more wealthy via trade and exchange of information and technology, but a solitary man can still create wealth alone on an island.

---

I like this sentence. I wish I understood it more deeply.

The solitary man is easy to understand.

But as you add more people, the problem of where this wealth came from becomes obvious. Unless you can trace back all this wealth to renewable (in human terms) springs or infinite (in human terms) resources, I don't follow how more people living together can grow exponentially more wealthy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyric

Hong Kong is one such experiment in free market economics. It began as a poor fishing village and grew to one of the richest countries in the world because of it enjoys almost non existent regulations on the free market.

I would post a video but the software won't allow it.

---

I'll pm you my email if it'll link to a video explaining how Hong Kong is a free market gone right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

I cannot summon up my usual douchey link but I recall a study which showed that even self-identified deeply caring people ignored obvious suffering because their schedule demanded that they be on stage 5 minutes ago.

I know that on the island, man will help a suffering man within ear-shout, but it becomes complicated with more details.

... gah, not making a point though I wish I were.

I don't believe that XX% of us will help others nearby is an applicable fact to a world where there are many many more people than our brains are capable of appreciating and sympathizing with.

---

It's because it's a mathematically false proposition. You can't claim that 90% of people are charitable towards suffering in a world where there exists suffering because eventually that 90% would flow through the entire system and virtually eradicate all suffering. The one billion people who were starving today falsifies that hypothesis

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Yet it doesn't actually happen

There goes that hypothesis

---

lol, I feel like this is true but at the same time, Bill Gates got how many billionaires to promise how much of their wealth to charity? Bill Gates and Warren Buffett Organize Billionaire Giving Pledge - ABC News

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Regulation should be viewed like rules and referees in a sporting event. Without it, the game doesn't work, the players are capable of "making their own rules", and getting away with a ton of foul play, etc.

On the flip side, stupid rules and stupid referees can really harm the system. Bring in a rule for the NFL that every fifth step an athlete takes he has to spike the ball then you get something fucking retarded and will ruin the entire thing.

Regulations and intervention are absolutely necessary in order for any economic system, it's just about regulating intelligently. On that point, I watched an interview with chief "de-regulation" libertarian Peter Schiff, and he unwittingly belied his own position by stating "we need less regulation but smarter regulation". Apparently, he either doesn't realize or slipped up in not openly acknowledging that quantity of regulation is inconsequential, but quality is what's important

Libertarians are closet socialists, they just don't know it nor how to implement their ideas correctly. But that's true about most self-identifying conservatives as well. Polling that negates prejudices shows that people who vote all over the political spectrum and claim to have all these different ideas, really don't, and are actually strongly liberal and socialist and all that stuff. The disconnect is primarily in inability to correctly compare politics and policy

---

We need referees to make sure no one is stealing or knocking over market tables or putting up roadblocks or extorting money from people. We don't need referees to do 99% of the things regulators currently do.

People generally care about the welfare of others who they consider to be similar to them and are near them. Socialists, libertarians, and conservatives all care about the general welfare. Socialists want to force people to do certain things with their money, conservatives generally want to force people to do certain things with their morality, and libertarians generally want to force people to avoid robbing, murdering or enslaving their neighbors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

lol, I feel like this is true but at the same time, Bill Gates got how many billionaires to promise how much of their wealth to charity? Bill Gates and Warren Buffett Organize Billionaire Giving Pledge - ABC News

---

Drop in a bucket, and the numbers are both smaller than they seem and unsustainable.

Besides, I wasn't even addressing the ability for charity to exist, but for it to do what others in this thread are magically imagining it can do then waving away the evidence that with ample opportunity in virtually all history it still hasn't worked

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

This is a straw man of democratic, progressive taxation, and all you have to do to see the plethora of evidence is look to when the different paradigms have been implemented in different societies

This stuff isn't a matter of opinion, but of the facts

---

Correlating rich and successful societies with socialist governments does not mean that socialism creates the rich and successful societies. It could be just the opposite -- that small government created the wealth to begin with, and that is in general what we see regarding wealth generation.

The United States began with a free market and was able to become the richest nation on earth within 150 years of its birth.

Hong Kong became one of the richest countries (per capita) within 50 years and it has a free market.

Nations that stagnate and die are always socialist or communist governments. North Korea, Cuba, and the Soviet Union are good examples.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyric

We need referees to make sure no one is stealing or knocking over market tables or putting up roadblocks or extorting money from people. We don't need referees to do 99% of the things regulators currently do.

---

If this were actually true then history would be different. You can't piss on my shoes and tell me it's raining, likewise you can't leverage a system, watch as it crashes due to the leveraging, then claim it wasn't because of leveraging. I can't believe the bullshit people buy. When you purchase a car you would go apeshit if it didn't have the tons of regulations in place that keep you from crashing, yet magically when liars tell you the economy needs no regulations you just hand them your wallet

With that, I'm done with this topic. I can only handle so much illusion and stalwart ignorance of the facts. Do some actual research on the real economy instead of repeating fairy tales

This is actually beginning to become a Poe, but I know it's not

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

You're equivocating scales. There's a reason why physics is broken up into different paradigms, and it's the same reason it is false to compare a two man economy with a million man one. The models themselves are fundamentally different

---

I don't agree. Would you like to offer some examples or suggestions for why a two man island is fundamentally different than a larger island?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

Firstly, yes.



Secondly, I'm a bit lost. Who all is on the island? Why does the rich guy stop working so hard? And I ask that question under the auspices of


That money isn't a direct motivation for getting awesome things done.

So tell me about the island with 3 legless/armless men, 2 workers (middle class) and 1 wealthy man with means for producing, without labor, cheese and wine.

---

Motivation involves both money and personal satisfaction. A combination of both is best, but either one will work. If I remember the video correctly (saw it awhile ago) it implies that money does not motivate people to work harder or to be creative. Nonsense. Money is a factor along with personal satisfaction and interest in the subject matter.

We interact with others on two basic levels -- friendship, where we wish to help our fellow man, and business, which involves payment for services rendered.

Spending time posting on poker forums is a great example. Excellent players give away free advice here because they find personal satisfaction and interact with others on the board as friends. If asked to post for a small amount of money, say $5 per post, they would likely refuse. If offered $1,000 per post they would likely accept because they would feel the money more accurately reflects the value they are providing.

Our world is not 50% legless people!

The hard working man was happy to work hard when he was alone on the island. After the others arrive he is still happy to work hard and trade with them. He may offer charity and hospitality to them as friends as well. They catch an extra fish and trade with him for wine or cheese. Everyone is better off with lots of fish wine and cheese being traded.

When they gang up on him and form a "government" and take 50% of everything he creates, he feels cheated, and realizes that the hard work he was doing before is now 50% less effective, and he is 50% less motivated to work for the things he enjoys like wine and cheese because when he is done making cheese he will only get half of the fruit of his labor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

I firmly stand, based upon what I've learned today, that there does not exist an infinite amount of wealth in this world.

---

Correct, there is only infinite potential for the creation of wealth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

Awesome, but still means it's a zero sum game. The positive is yielded by us, the negative is shouldered by an unimaginably huge, unimaginably powerful energy generator, imaginably far way.

---

In the end when the universe collapses in upon itself, it is a zero sum game. Here on earth, as we build and create products that we value, we have a limitless potential to create more and more things that we value.

More buildings, cleaner air, tastier food, safer cars, better medicine and health care, better computers, faster airplanes, space travel, etc. It can go on and on forever because we won't ever run out of power to transform into wealth until the universe (or we) die.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

I think you misunderstood my point, which was that even though the same word (economics) is used, a tiny island economy operates on a different enough paradigm than the massive global economy that comparing them in order to explain them is false.

Until you scale population, industry, and most everything else correctly, you can't really compare the two. One example: a small economy is systemically incapable of supporting an auto industry. You simply cannot mix and match facets of that economy with one that is actually capable of supporting an auto industry. They're just two entirely different things

---

One man can run an auto manufacturing industry. That's how cars were invented and developed. To manufacture them millions at a time takes cooperation, and that cooperation should be voluntary for best results.

Continuing to claim that a five man island does not translate to a million man island is beginning to sound like complete hooey. At what point does it magically transform into a different economic paradigm? Fifty people? One thousand? 12,045? Where?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Yet still not price-able

This whole idea is seriously woo woo territory. It's like thinking you can cut a cell with a knife because you can cut skin with a knife

---

Prices are 100% irrelevant to wealth. Wealth is something human beings value. That's it... no prices needed. Cheese is valuable to most men. Making cheese and storing it in your hut is still creating and storing wealth, even if there is no price tag on the cheese.

Prices are only needed when two men begin bargaining about how much cheese to exchange for how many bottles of wine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

I cannot summon up my usual douchey link but I recall a study which showed that even self-identified deeply caring people ignored obvious suffering because their schedule demanded that they be on stage 5 minutes ago.

I know that on the island, man will help a suffering man within ear-shout, but it becomes complicated with more details.

... gah, not making a point though I wish I were.

I don't believe that XX% of us will help others nearby is an applicable fact to a world where there are many many more people than our brains are capable of appreciating and sympathizing with.

---

I agree. And I have seen the same studies. People are less willing to help others if they can reasonably assume that someone else will do it soon, and if they are strangers. They are likely to help, however, if the person in need points at the directly, identifies them in some way, and asks for help directly. This part is usually left out of the studies showing we are heartless, but if you ever need help in public remember this point. It removes their internal assumption that someone else will help or someone else is responsible and places responsibility on the selected passerby.

There have always been charities, and wealthy people have always supported them in all cultures over the history of time. It won't ever go away, and it's silly to think that government officials are somehow more intelligent, generous, and competent in helping the poor.

The money that government forcibly collects is generally only camouflaged by the "helping the poor" rhetoric. Do you think that when a housing project goes up in the inner city the contract is not awarded to the construction company with the most friends in politics?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

I like this sentence. I wish I understood it more deeply.

The solitary man is easy to understand.

But as you add more people, the problem of where this wealth came from becomes obvious. Unless you can trace back all this wealth to renewable (in human terms) springs or infinite (in human terms) resources, I don't follow how more people living together can grow exponentially more wealthy.

---

You can see it with two and three men. At first the man perfects cheese making. He's not very good at wine or anything else. He is alone with good cheese and mediocre wine and veggies.

Man number two arrives and develops a method for making great wine. He's not so good at cheese. They trade. Now both men have great wine and great cheese.

Man three comes along and focuses on making tomatoes. Now all three exchange and all three of them have cheese, wine, and tomatoes that were better than they ever could have had living alone, and they do no more additional work. The added wealth and quality of life improvements come by trading the fruits of their labor with other people.

When you get to 6 billion people you get what we have today. Imagine how high we could climb without gangs of men (governments) coming together to ban us from trading with each other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

It's because it's a mathematically false proposition. You can't claim that 90% of people are charitable towards suffering in a world where there exists suffering because eventually that 90% would flow through the entire system and virtually eradicate all suffering. The one billion people who were starving today falsifies that hypothesis

---

People are not starving because the world lacks the willingness to give. People starve because incompetent governments stop them from being productive, and intercept gifts of food and medicine from other nations and sell it to their own starving masses.

They also stop them from owning a business, stop them from trading with other countries, stop them from owning a house, inflate currencies and make any other currency illegal, do not have active police forces to protect the fruits of labor, do not have effective access to credit, do not have effective courts of law. Often the country is in the middle of a war when starvation happens, or it is a failed social planning experiment.

The nations where people starve have horrible gangsters running the land and ruining their lives and stealing everything from them until they literally starve to death.

It's like a man with a machine gun arriving on our island and taking everything from everyone else, and never allowing them to have anything, and if anything washes up on shore they take it, and he often gets in fights with other islands who have guns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

If this were actually true then history would be different. You can't piss on my shoes and tell me it's raining, likewise you can't leverage a system, watch as it crashes due to the leveraging, then claim it wasn't because of leveraging. I can't believe the bullshit people buy. When you purchase a car you would go apeshit if it didn't have the tons of regulations in place that keep you from crashing, yet magically when liars tell you the economy needs no regulations you just hand them your wallet

With that, I'm done with this topic. I can only handle so much illusion and stalwart ignorance of the facts. Do some actual research on the real economy instead of repeating fairy tales

This is actually beginning to become a Poe, but I know it's not

---

Auto safety and technology came along well before the government got involved. I would be happy to pay $2,000 (avg cost added by regulations to each car) less for my car if the gov't stepped out of the way. Volvo was making safe cars and advertising that to people before the gov't mandated it. Today many auto makers are making vehicles that sense a crash and apply the brakes, and are introducing new safety features at a breakneck pace because that's what car buyers value. The government does not have to force them to install these technologies!

The government being involved only makes the process slower and makes it cost more.

lyric, you can't be serious about being so stubborn with how your 5-man island is even remotely comparable to modern economics (not to mention the fact that the "if a gov't were formed where the rich guy had to cut up his assets evenly amongst the lazy asses, then the rich guy wouldn't work anymore" thing trying to be analogous with progressive taxes is a retardedly obvious strawman).

drop bill gates on the island. boom, all he has to do is donate 1% of his billions of fish and everyone is fed for the rest of their lives and NO ONE has to work again, so who gives a shit about motivation. that's just an example (and far from the best one) as to how this scenario isn't analogous at all.

one could argue (and that's as far as I'm willing to say, 'cause even the statement to follow is arguable, especially considering YOU'RE the one arguing that humans are so naturally nice and charitable) that in your scenario where the other four islanders eat solely of the fish provided by the hard-working islander, then both sides would be de-incentivized. again, this has nothing to do with progressive taxation, though. let's say mark zuckerburg were to have a magic crystal ball, and he simoltaneously lived in two different worlds:

World 1) he makes 2 billion dollars off of his pet project called Facebook.

World 2) he makes 1 billion dollars off of his pet project because the rest has been taxed off.

according to your island "analogy", in world 1 zuckerburg's like ZOMFG YEAH SNAPCALL! I'M GONNA WORK MY BUNS OFF FOR THIS PROJECT, and in world 2 he's like "fuck that, i don't wanna be a billionaire, if there's free money out there to be spent, i'm gonna fake a crack addiction like dennis and dee did in that one episode and live off of enough money to feed myself with mac n chz and live in a studio apartment the rest of my life. FREE MONEY FOR THE WIN!"

this is only point one of how your analogy is an exaggeration at the very very very very best: for the 10th time, wuf's not talking about rich people like the small business owner who's raking 500k a year or durrr or anything liek that, he's talking people who have so much money that if you were to decimate it, you still would have nfi what to fucking spend all that much money on--it's unfathomable.

maybe it's tough to conceptualize as a poker player, because if your inverse equity in a pot (in other words, risk of ruin in the business world) were to be the same, yet the amount you stand to win (or how much net worth your company can have after taxes, etc) were to be cut in 1/2, then you would be VERY de-incentivized to get involved in that pot. EV's don't work like that in the real world, though. if a magic genie were to pop up and grant you a wish and you ask for $1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 and the genie's like, "wait you said $100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, right?" and you'd be like "i think you missed a zero, thus fucking DECIMATING how much money i get in this deal, yet i don't care because it's still more money than i can use or even generations of my family can possibly use, so sure i'll take it"

again, pointing out how the proportionality in your argument doesn't match up, isn't even the biggest incongruity to be pointed out in your analogy. things like, the fact that this society is too small to even necessitate currency, much less banks, much less credit, much less legacies of debt, and that assets and value are simply and purely based in how much edible shit you got, etc etc etc are even much bigger glaring differences.

e.g. explain to me the recent financial crisis in the terms of your hypothetical island and explain to me which governmental system, or lack thereof would do best to prevent/alleviate/recover from it. in b4 an lolable post that's like "surely if they don't band together and make a gov't and just keep it a free flowing market, then that'll prevent the rich guy from making risky investments on the armless guy's sharpened stick and sell it to the legless guy..."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

This is my comment. A person who has earned money can do whatever they want with it, including giving it to their children or wife.

---

This has been a huge problem in Britain, were we have a long history of classes. Take an upper class familoy as an example - 300 hundred year ago, their great, great etc grandfather fucked over a load of peasants and had a huge estate with a huge stately home.

300 years later his family is still living off that money. All the generations have gone to the best schools in the country, have the best connections and all the trappings of wealth. After school they go to Oxbridge and get a top degree. They go on to become become prime minister using their connections and wealth, reduce taxes (including inhertitance tax of course) and look after there chums who had the same privildges as above.

As for someone like myeslf - I might well be brighter and more motivated than the above person, but due to my great great etc grandfather being one of the people his great, great etc grandfather fucked over all those years ago, I go to a shit school and live on a rough estate. I need to leave school at 16 and get a job to help pay to feed the family....problem is there are no jobs because the prime minsters chums siphoned off all the wealth in the country in some mortgage scheme I don't understand, but has ended up losing my home etc etc

Welcome to England and the unfair weath distributution and why I think we should raise the inheritance tax higher...(obv along with other reasons).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WillburForce

This has been a huge problem in Britain, were we have a long history of classes. Take an upper class familoy as an example - 300 hundred year ago, their great, great etc grandfather fucked over a load of peasants and had a huge estate with a huge stately home.

300 years later his family is still living off that money. All the generations have gone to the best schools in the country, have the best connections and all the trappings of wealth. After school they go to Oxbridge and get a top degree. They go on to become become prime minister using their connections and wealth, reduce taxes (including inhertitance tax of course) and look after there chums who had the same privildges as above.

As for someone like myeslf - I might well be brighter and more motivated than the above person, but due to my great great etc grandfather being one of the people his great, great etc grandfather fucked over all those years ago, I go to a shit school and live on a rough estate. I need to leave school at 16 and get a job to help pay to feed the family....problem is there are no jobs because the prime minsters chums siphoned off all the wealth in the country in some mortgage scheme I don't understand, but has ended up losing my home etc etc

Welcome to England and the unfair weath distributution and why I think we should raise the inheritance tax higher...(obv along with other reasons).

---

What are some other reasons?

Good counter example. You should certainly do your part and try to not accept money from people who gained it from illegitimate means. However, i think in this case its not that necessary. First, inflation is huge, money gained 300 years ago is not going to be worth as much as it is now. Second, that money has been spent and has been put into to different hands. Its almost certainly the case. The money your actually referring to is likely money that these people gained by perpetuating legitimate uses of their wealth to the benefit of society. Owning property and good investment is a great example of activities that benefit society. They may seem easy and unfair but they are not. Owning property is a gigantic risk, which is why it has a nice reward. Investing is the same thing. Most do not succeed in these endeavors.

Referring to the bolded quote: Youre saying they were able to do shady shit because they are the prime ministers chums, and you want to give the government more power?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by surviva316

drop bill gates on the island. boom, all he has to do is donate 1% of his billions of fish and everyone is fed for the rest of their lives and NO ONE has to work again, so who gives a shit about motivation. that's just an example (and far from the best one) as to how this scenario isn't analogous at all.

---

Actually, your example is impossible, and totally unanalogous to the real world. bill gates doesnt have a billion fish. And they dont just magically appear to him. This is what I think is the biggest disconnect between progressive liberals and libertarians. Libertarians look at a rich man and sees he earned his wealth. Liberals see that it magically appeared to him. Yet, in cases where it magically appears to the rich, the power of the government had a role to play. Nonetheless, you want to give the government more power?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

Actually, your example is impossible, and totally unanalogous to the real world. bill gates doesnt have a billion fish. And they dont just magically appear to him. This is what I think is the biggest disconnect between progressive liberals and libertarians. Libertarians look at a rich man and sees he earned his wealth. Liberals see that it magically appeared to him. Yet, in cases where it magically appears to the rich, the power of the government had a role to play. Nonetheless, you want to give the government more power?

---

QFT

As has been stated many times over in this thread, if someone is mega wealthy, it probably means that many people have voluntarily exchanged money with them or their company in exchange for a good or service. Especially people that everyone seems to be using as examples, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Zuckerburg, etc. We use Windows because it allows us to know that our computer will be compatible with any new technology that comes up. We use facebook because it allows us to connect with people we could have never connected with before. If you don't want to use these things, you are perfectly free to do so. But what you're saying is you want to pay these people for these awesome services, then take the money, that we all voluntarily paid them, back.

You're trying to have your cake and eat it to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

It's because it's a mathematically false proposition. You can't claim that 90% of people are charitable towards suffering in a world where there exists suffering because eventually that 90% would flow through the entire system and virtually eradicate all suffering. The one billion people who were starving today falsifies that hypothesis

---

This is your problem. I give my money to my friend, lets say my brother Aaron. Aaron would undoubtedely spend it all within a year on things for his own entertainment (Aaron is an adult and I could likely get him to corroborate this statement (no offense Aaron I love you)). He is still suffering after a year yet I still gave him charity.

Therefore, giving charity does not necessarily erase suffering. Insert government hand outs and its still not true. It can help, and so can government hand outs, but that doesn't mean either are good ways to do it. This doesn't mean charity or government hand outs are good or bad, your statement simply means nothing because its false.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

What are some other reasons?

Good counter example. You should certainly do your part and try to not accept money from people who gained it from illegitimate means. However, i think in this case its not that necessary. First, inflation is huge, money gained 300 years ago is not going to be worth as much as it is now. Second, that money has been spent and has been put into to different hands. Its almost certainly the case. The money your actually referring to is likely money that these people gained by perpetuating legitimate uses of their wealth to the benefit of society. Owning property and good investment is a great example of activities that benefit society. They may seem easy and unfair but they are not. Owning property is a gigantic risk, which is why it has a nice reward. Investing is the same thing. Most do not succeed in these endeavors.

Referring to the bolded quote: Youre saying they were able to do shady shit because they are the prime ministers chums, and you want to give the government more power?

---

The future generations may well have earned more money through legitimate means, but by having access to better schooling, better health care and a general better roll of the dice it is inheritanly unfair. So whislt yes, the money spent has helped society in a round about way, by having a distinct heirachy, it ensures that sections of society will always be blighted.

To quote L Cohen: "The poor stay poor, the rich get rich, thats how it goes, everybody knows"

Why should my next door neighbours child have a worse education than my child because I have more money? Is my child more deserving?

With regards the government and more power - well I hate the UK's current government and despise all that they stand for and would like to seem them and their Eton chums stripped of all their welth...but I'm a left wing socialist at heart (who also likes to drink Pol Roger and gamble)...

good debate BTW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

Actually, your example is impossible, and totally unanalogous to the real world. bill gates doesnt have a billion fish. And they dont just magically appear to him. This is what I think is the biggest disconnect between progressive liberals and libertarians. Libertarians look at a rich man and sees he earned his wealth. Liberals see that it magically appeared to him. Yet, in cases where it magically appears to the rich, the power of the government had a role to play. Nonetheless, you want to give the government more power?

---

my post had very little to do, if at all with my view of the world and was simply demonstrating that lyric's island analogy that he was so certain could solve all the complex problems of economics was incongruous because, for one reason, the proportionality of wealth demonstrated is way off. in other words, bill gates doesn't just have 4 fish and he shares 2 of those--one each--with his other two island comrades, and is left with 2 fish, the exact equal amount as the other islanders.

i'm not AT ALLLLLLL even coming close to even trying to bring into the example how the bill gates islander come upon these fish or whether his work was legitimately a million times more deserving than the others, etc. in fact, scratching this issue only goes further to prove my point that the island scenario isn't comparable to modern economics, regardless of whether or not you think bill gates' wealth is deserved or not.

point is, for the purpose of my post, i don't give a shit whether it's deserved or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

Aaron I love you

---

ISF said I love you to a dude; hence, he's gay; hence, him and max buttsects; hence, their arguments are invalid; hence, they lose the debate.

well it was a fun debate, and you guys were making some valid points there for a while. better luck next time

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

This is your problem. I give my money to my friend, lets say my brother Aaron. Aaron would undoubtedely spend it all within a year on things for his own entertainment (Aaron is an adult and I could likely get him to corroborate this statement (no offense Aaron I love you)). He is still suffering after a year yet I still gave him charity.

Therefore, giving charity does not necessarily erase suffering. Insert government hand outs and its still not true. It can help, and so can government hand outs, but that doesn't mean either are good ways to do it. This doesn't mean charity or government hand outs are good or bad, your statement simply means nothing because its false.

---

My statement is accurate. You're working on the assumption that his statement was something other than what it was. Emphatically claiming 90% of people are charitable when they see suffering determines that suffering would be eradicated because whenever those 90% see the suffering they're charitable.

His statement was pulled directly from his ass, as with just about all of them

You guys are going to have to forgive me, I get very irritated at this point in an economics "debate" with libertarian ideas. I'm not trying to be mean, but libertarianism, no matter how much sense it may make to any given person, is about as accurate an understanding of econ as flat-earth is of geography. Making the correct points only to get hand-waved aside by robot drivel is disheartening. Some of what has been posted has been okay, but the stuff that is irritating me is also some of the best potential econ Poe I've seen. So I'll just go ahead stop trying to argue about it

I say "debate" because this isn't a debate. Arguing against taxation as a role in econ is like arguing against gravity as a role in physics. It's just not freaking possible.

Zero percent of the time can you live in a system that isn't run on government. Zero percent of the time can you be involved in any system not determined by regulations. Zero percent of the time can you live in modern society without taxation. These things are just not possible. A lot of the disconnect comes from simply misunderstanding what things like "government", "regulation", and "taxation" mean. Libertarianism unwittingly misunderstands basic concepts and science then they fabricate make-believe fantasy worlds where things that are not even possible magically exist.

As much as libertarians wish they were arguing for lower/no taxes or reduced/no government, they're unwittingly arguing for regressive taxation and special government. You cannot find one single large society in the history of the planet that didn't run on taxation, and 100% of the time the society perpetuated for some time with an effective regressive taxation model, the society became more and more totalitarian; on the flip side, when progressive taxation is pushed, the society becomes more egalitarian.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyric

One man on an island can be rich or poor. He can by lazy -- catching one fish per day and have nothing, or he can work every day and build a comfortable house, clothing, running water, bathrooms and sewage. He can domesticate animals for food, eggs, milk. He can build a small farm and store grains for later use. He can create drugs and medicines by experimenting with plant life and create alcohol by fermenting grains. He can bake bread, and make cheese for long term storage of milk.

He can begin to accumulate wealth on the island even as one man, and enjoy a life of luxury through hard work and storage of food (saving).

---

lol.. You cannot be serious? Nearly none of these things are possibly accomplished by one man in one life time. Develop medicines? Really? Do you not recognize how many thousands of years it took people to develop herbal remedies, half of which were not remedies at all but just simply old wives tales. Do you propose that this sole human is just born with the knowledge of basic architecture? How many different styles of homes do you think were created before a given culture found a relatively easy to make and safe one? What happens when Joe Islander twists his ankle after hopping down from harvesting coconuts? Hes dead.. that's what happens.

Even so, we could ignore the absurd claims to Joe's potential accomplishments and just say that he could forage for the bare minimum of fruits/nuts/vegetables per day or he could get a little extra. That little extra would allow him to have some free time in the following day or week. So yes, he can be "richer" to and extent, but just barely. And even if we go back and accept your claims of his potential accomplishments, as wuf said, he still cannot possibly be anywhere near as rich as he could be with a society to prop him up. So while you have technically countered my analogy, you have done so in the weakest fashion. As far as I can see my point still stands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyric

Most of the richest men in the modern era have given away most of their fortunes at the end of their lifetimes. Rockefeller earned 900 million and gave away 550 million before his death.

Carnegie invented the public library, funding 3,000 libraries and funding them with 250,000 to 500,000 dollars each. He promoted spelling and literacy and before him books were not easily accessible to the lower classes. He gave away 351 million before he died, and his last 30 million was donated to charity after his death.

Bill Gates and Warren Buffet plan to give away their entire fortunes before they die, and are actively persuading the world's other billionaires to do the same.

The great thing about these guys giving away money is that they are often very shrewd gamblers/assessors to risk and reward. They have a keen mind and use it to put money where it will help society the most. Charities and government may not have the same abilities or strong desires to help the world -- they may be motivated by religion or helping advance political or business agendas.

Most billionaires of the modern era end up giving away much of their fortunes before they die.

---

You have given four examples, yet have made a truly fantastical claim. I hope you can understand that I do not believe this claim in the least bit.

sidenote: I do have a great amount of respect for the charitable nature of the men mentioned.

Ok, so at some point one of you said "well the government should pay for schools through taxation, its the other stuff that they waste tax dollars on that takes away from school funding."

So I'd like a list of areas it is acceptable for the gov't to spend tax money.

In advance I would just like to point out that whatever area it is not ok (in your libertarian view) for the gov't to spend tax money on, I'll just plug into my previous argument wherever "school" was used.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by surviva316

lyric, you can't be serious about being so stubborn with how your 5-man island is even remotely comparable to modern economics (not to mention the fact that the "if a gov't were formed where the rich guy had to cut up his assets evenly amongst the lazy asses, then the rich guy wouldn't work anymore" thing trying to be analogous with progressive taxes is a retardedly obvious strawman).

drop bill gates on the island. boom, all he has to do is donate 1% of his billions of fish and everyone is fed for the rest of their lives and NO ONE has to work again, so who gives a shit about motivation. that's just an example (and far from the best one) as to how this scenario isn't analogous at all."

---

Dropping bill gates onto our island isn't applicable. First, you're assuming that there is so much wealth being horded by the ultra wealthy that if we just took all their money and gave it to everyone we wold all be rich. That is not the case; each American would have a net worth of about $20,000 if we did that in the United States which is hardly enough to retire and live a happy life.

There is no Bill Gates in the world with enough money to do that, even if we divided all wealth on earth equally.

Second, I am not arguing against progressive income tax. I am arguing against an income tax in the first place; when a government taxes the income of the wealthy more than everyone else it is analogous to the islanders taxing the hard working islander and not themselves. I don't see how this is a straw man; I think it is a valid argument against an income tax. A straw man argument involves painting an inaccurate picture of your argument and tearing it apart; I think five men on an island is directly comparable to the world we live in today.

Please continue with why you think it does not apply; Gates can't work because there is no analogous situation in the real world -- not enough wealth to affect the poor in the same way that Gates would be able to affect islanders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

lol.. You cannot be serious? Nearly none of these things are possibly accomplished by one man in one life time. Develop medicines? Really? Do you not recognize how many thousands of years it took people to develop herbal remedies, half of which were not remedies at all but just simply old wives tales. Do you propose that this sole human is just born with the knowledge of basic architecture? How many different styles of homes do you think were created before a given culture found a relatively easy to make and safe one? What happens when Joe Islander twists his ankle after hopping down from harvesting coconuts? Hes dead.. that's what happens.

Even so, we could ignore the absurd claims to Joe's potential accomplishments and just say that he could forage for the bare minimum of fruits/nuts/vegetables per day or he could get a little extra. That little extra would allow him to have some free time in the following day or week. So yes, he can be "richer" to and extent, but just barely. And even if we go back and accept your claims of his potential accomplishments, as wuf said, he still cannot possibly be anywhere near as rich as he could be with a society to prop him up. So while you have technically countered my analogy, you have done so in the weakest fashion. As far as I can see my point still stands.

---

We're talking about a fictitious island where a modern man is shipwrecked, and talking about the possible wealth he may develop on the island alone or with a few other people. It is not relevant to our economics discussion how long it took to develop knowledge of plants, wine making, or architecture. What is relevant is how the men interact and weather or not one man can create and save "wealth" alone on the island.

Regardless of how much wealth he may be able to accumulate, it would be directly related to his intelligence, the amount of labor he put into it each day, his knowledge, and technical and physical skill. It would have nothing to do with other people or taking advantage of anyone.

The more people arrive on the island the better the quality of life will be, in general, as long as they are allowed to exchange the fruits of their labor with each other, as discussed in my other post about how wealth and quality of life exponentially grows with each new person added to the island.

I don't have time to continue any thread in this conversation right now, but I do want to say something.

I was thinking about this a lot today and I really, really think it's a zero sum game. That there exists a maximum, non-infinite amount of order and wealth that could possibly created on Earth, but all of that is coupled with the spending of resources. That you can say man can take a tomato and turn it into an amazing meal implies a great wealth multiplier but certainly not an infinite wealth multiplier. It is impossible for anything to be able to take any consistent parts, organize them, and yield infinite wealth.

I would like to hear why anyone thinks that there exists the possibility for infinite wealth or why wealth-creation is not a zero sum game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

You guys are going to have to forgive me, I get very irritated at this point in an economics "debate" with libertarian ideas. I'm not trying to be mean, but libertarianism, no matter how much sense it may make to any given person, is about as accurate an understanding of econ as flat-earth is of geography. Making the correct points only to get hand-waved aside by robot drivel is disheartening. Some of what has been posted has been okay, but the stuff that is irritating me is also some of the best potential econ Poe I've seen. So I'll just go ahead stop trying to argue about it

I say "debate" because this isn't a debate. Arguing against taxation as a role in econ is like arguing against gravity as a role in physics. It's just not freaking possible.

Zero percent of the time can you live in a system that isn't run on government. Zero percent of the time can you be involved in any system not determined by regulations. Zero percent of the time can you live in modern society without taxation. These things are just not possible. A lot of the disconnect comes from simply misunderstanding what things like "government", "regulation", and "taxation" mean. Libertarianism unwittingly misunderstands basic concepts and science then they fabricate make-believe fantasy worlds where things that are not even possible magically exist.

As much as libertarians wish they were arguing for lower/no taxes or reduced/no government, they're unwittingly arguing for regressive taxation and special government. You cannot find one single large society in the history of the planet that didn't run on taxation, and 100% of the time the society perpetuated for some time with an effective regressive taxation model, the society became more and more totalitarian; on the flip side, when progressive taxation is pushed, the society becomes more egalitarian.

---

What is "special government?"

A flat tax is not a regressive tax.

An island with five men can exist without taxation indefinitely. How big does the island economy have to get before taxation is necessary? The five men have no government. How big does it have to get before it needs a government?

I think these are fascinating ideas to ponder; I'm curious as to why you don't bother to elaborate on anything, instead choosing ad hominem attacks against libertarians in general, and proclaiming that economies are so complex that no one can understand them except perhaps Krugman.

It seems clear to me that you are repeating what you have learned in school; you don't seem willing or able to engage in a discussion about basic wealth creation and exchange between real people in a simple economy.

There is a lot of talk about taxation being as basic as gravity, but no evidence offered for why this might be true. You speak of libertarianism leading to horrible things but don't offer any evidence or even a basic argument. I would invite you to begin with arguments instead of brushing valid analogies aside as overly simplistic because they do not fit your world view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

I don't have time to continue any thread in this conversation right now, but I do want to say something.

I was thinking about this a lot today and I really, really think it's a zero sum game. That there exists a maximum, non-infinite amount of order and wealth that could possibly created on Earth, but all of that is coupled with the spending of resources. That you can say man can take a tomato and turn it into an amazing meal implies a great wealth multiplier but certainly not an infinite wealth multiplier. It is impossible for anything to be able to take any consistent parts, organize them, and yield infinite wealth.

I would like to hear why anyone thinks that there exists the possibility for infinite wealth or why wealth-creation is not a zero sum game.

---

Did you see my post regarding this? Wealth is directly correlated to energy. As long as we have energy we can turn it into wealth. Energy is the only raw material needed to create wealth, energy never leaves the universe, and we are going to have a constant stream of energy from the sun for five billion years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyric

Did you see my post regarding this? Wealth is directly correlated to energy. As long as we have energy we can turn it into wealth. Energy is the only raw material needed to create wealth, energy never leaves the universe, and we are going to have a constant stream of energy from the sun for five billion years.

---

Yeah, I did. But I thought I made the point and I'll make it now:

There is still finite energy; a lot of energy, but finite energy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WillburForce

The future generations may well have earned more money through legitimate means, but by having access to better schooling, better health care and a general better roll of the dice it is inheritanly unfair. So whislt yes, the money spent has helped society in a round about way, by having a distinct heirachy, it ensures that sections of society will always be blighted.

To quote L Cohen: "The poor stay poor, the rich get rich, thats how it goes, everybody knows"

Why should my next door neighbors child have a worse education than my child because I have more money? Is my child more deserving?

---

It is impossible to make everyone equal at birth. Do do this you would have to make sure everyone has the same intelligence, physical talent, creativity, attractiveness, etc. Money is one of many factors that can be varied at birth.

It does seem unfair that some of us are born with talents that others don't have, some are born very intelligent, and some are born mentally retarded. There is luck in being born, and we can't remove that unfairness in any reasonable way, excepting killing everyone who is not average or genetic engineering.

Attempting to make sure everyone is born with the same amount of money is equally disastrous and equally pointless. What we want to ensure at birth is that everyone has an equal opportunity to be free, happy, and become wealthy by using hard work and whatever talents they may have.

Trying to ensure that people who work hard have as much money during their lifetimes as people who don't work at all is a terrible idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

Yeah, I did. But I thought I made the point and I'll make it now:

There is still finite energy; a lot of energy, but finite energy.

---

That you can take a tomato and create a trillion dollar meal, but you can not take a tomato and create an infinity dollar meal.

Also, this is a great thread. I'd recommend anyone lurking chime in with the two cents they're hoarding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by surviva316

things like, the fact that this society is too small to even necessitate currency, much less banks, much less credit, much less legacies of debt, and that assets and value are simply and purely based in how much edible shit you got, etc etc etc are even much bigger glaring differences.

---

Assets and value on the island relate to tools, houses, weapons, medicines, drugs, alcohol, services (labor) and food. All of them have values, not just the food. The point is to make it easy to understand, and we con proceed with five people to create a bank and currency. We can also have credit and debt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

That you can take a tomato and create a trillion dollar meal, but you can not take a tomato and create an infinity dollar meal.

---

Right, there is not infinite energy in the universe, but it is a resource that is never destroyed. It can be used over and over again forever. Time is infinite, so the only limit to wealth creation (order that benefits us) is time. We can use the same energy over and over again because it is never destroyed, it stays in the universe forever. We just keep grabbing it and using it to order the world around us to improve our lives.

Gah, I still want to stay on the island before we invent things like credit and debt. I'm still exploring the robustness of this construct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyric

Right, there is not infinite energy in the universe, but it is a resource that is never destroyed. It can be used over and over again forever. Time is infinite, so the only limit to wealth creation (order that benefits us) is time. We can use the same energy over and over again because it is never destroyed, it stays in the universe forever. We just keep grabbing it and using it to order the world around us to improve our lives.

---

Time is squiggly sign infinite, it's not infinite. (And energy isn't destroyed but it's easily lost or rendered useless.)

I just want to hear you say, there exists a ceiling of total possible wealth, but that ceiling can't truly be defined, for it can always be lifted; but the ceiling exists.

edit though you can find a way to take a tomato and turn it into a trillion dollar meal, someone else can take a tomato make a quadrillion dollar meal. But no one can make an infinity dollar meal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

Time is squiggly sign infinite, it's not infinite.

I just want to hear you say, there exists a ceiling of total possible wealth, but that ceiling can't truly be defined, for it can always be lifted; but the ceiling exists.

edit though you can find a way to take a tomato and turn it into a trillion dollar meal, someone else can take a tomato make a quadrillion dollar meal. But no one can make an infinity dollar meal.

---

The most current theories about the universe indicate that time is indeed infinite and that the universe will continue expanding forever until we are alone in the dark, so far from every other star that we can't see them anymore; we would be moving away from them so fast that the light never reaches us.

If time is finite I will agree with you. As it stands modern science thinks time goes on forever and if that is the case wealth can go on forever as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

edit though you can find a way to take a tomato and turn it into a trillion dollar meal, someone else can take a tomato make a quadrillion dollar meal. But no one can make an infinity dollar meal.

---

Correct, but over an infinite time period humans can make trillion dollar meals over and over again, forever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

Gah, I still want to stay on the island before we invent things like credit and debt. I'm still exploring the robustness of this construct.

---

We don't have to leave the island to create banks, money, debt and credit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyric

The most current theories about the universe indicate that time is indeed infinite and that the universe will continue expanding forever until we are alone in the dark, so far from every other star that we can't see them anymore; we would be moving away from them so fast that the light never reaches us.

If time is finite I will agree with you. As it stands modern science thinks time goes on forever and if that is the case wealth can go on forever as well.

---

You're in my wheel house now. Time is not forever. Time is nothing in a black hole, if you could find yourself in a point of absolute, zero gravity, time would be forever... time is not forever.

And there are obvious weaknesses in current theories. I'm not going to be the super-douchebag I know myself to be by pretending I know any of the answers but anyone who has been desirous of a unified theory of everything, implies that the current theories aren't enough. And anyone who believes nature is how she is and we are just trying to understand her, sees that our current understanding isn't complete.

So on what I think I know, I can only say this:

Time is not infinte. Wealth is not infinite.

Hey, my usual douchey link to reinforce my beliefs

Mysterious force holds back Nasa probe in deep space - Telegraph

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by surviva316

e.g. explain to me the recent financial crisis in the terms of your hypothetical island and explain to me which governmental system, or lack thereof would do best to prevent/alleviate/recover from it. in b4 an lolable post that's like "surely if they don't band together and make a gov't and just keep it a free flowing market, then that'll prevent the rich guy from making risky investments on the armless guy's sharpened stick and sell it to the legless guy..."

---

The recent financial crisis was caused by two extraordinary popular delusions. The first was the stock market internet mania, the second was the housing mania. Both supported by government interventions -- it restricts the average person to investing in stocks, bonds, and mutual funds, which creates abnormal demand for stocks and moves investments away from hedge funds.

The housing bubble was supported by laws literally forcing banks to make bad loans to poor people who would probably not be able to make the payments, government endorsed low interest rates, reduced taxes for people who have mortgage loans, and loan guarantees by Freddie and Fanny.

These bubbles have existed since the beginning of time. Check out a book titled "Extraordinary Popular Delusions & the Madness of Crowds" for a good historical rundown. You've probably heard about tulip mania in Holland, but this stuff happens over and over again.

It could happen on an island as well, but without government support and intervention, it would be shorter and smaller.

The "bailout" was even more unconscionable, taking millions of our dollars and handing them over to the banks. It's a giant mess and the government is in the middle of the whole thing -- forcing banks to make bad loans and then keeping them alive when they die because of the bad loans.

There is no way to stop bubbles and manias, but the best option we have is to avoid having the government support some businesses instead of others, as they do with the modern mutual fund and home loan businesses -- without those supports bubbles are less likely and less severe.

Additionally, the Fed -- a pseudo government agency, is responsible for bubbles and crashes to some extent as well when it manipulates interest rates and the money supply. This is a complex subject, but our island analogy will help us understand it on its most basic level.

We don't need a government to have currencies and banks. On an island one man could set up a strong stone building and start a bank that would issue currency. There are two ways to do it. Remember that the purpose of money is to make it easier for people to trade -- uniform small chunks of wealth = money.

1. The banker can take things of value and hold them in his stone building, issuing chunks of gold corresponding to the value of the item. He would effectively be "buying" your wheel of cheese and giving you gold in small pieces in exchange. This doesn't work very well because many wheels of cheese and wine and so forth are stuck in the bank instead of being enjoyed by the people. Additionally, he can't put your house that you spent the last year building into his bank -- he needs a better solution.

2. The solution is to purchase the home you built with a loan agreement. He agrees to loan you gold corresponding to the value of your house and you agree that he owns the house until you pay him back. In this way he effectively trades gold for your home on paper, and you continue to live in the house, enjoying its value, but you can also spend the money. In this way we have money and things of value on the island at the same time.

We can also create a paper currency on the island but it is more complex; the simple form of paper would be the banker issuing certificates of deposit, denominated in anything of value. It could be cheese denominated -- the currency could say "five pounds of cheese." It would mean that the note entitles you to go to the bank and get five pounds of cheese for the piece of paper.

In the past we used gold in this way. Today we don't use anything -- the banker can print as much money as he wishes and we have no way to stop him and no idea what his currency is really worth, all we can do is watch how much money he is spending and assume that he's printing more than he holds in his stone hut -- which is the situation with our current system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

Yeah, I did. But I thought I made the point and I'll make it now:

There is still finite energy; a lot of energy, but finite energy.

---

I'm sure Lyric will eventually concede this point but I'm wondering why its important that a shit ton, more than anyone in the world could ever need or want, is different than infinity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyric

The recent financial crisis was caused by two extraordinary popular delusions. The first was the stock market internet mania, the second was the housing mania. Both supported by government interventions -- it restricts the average person to investing in stocks, bonds, and mutual funds, which creates abnormal demand for stocks and moves investments away from hedge funds.

The housing bubble was supported by laws literally forcing banks to make bad loans to poor people who would probably not be able to make the payments, government endorsed low interest rates, reduced taxes for people who have mortgage loans, and loan guarantees by Freddie and Fanny.

---

Ho

Lee

Shit

Ladies and gentlemen, the definition of brainwashed.

In other news, burning coal is the only way to keep vegetation alive, women showing too much skin causes earthquakes, and masturbation is a sin.

I really have no words. There are literally zero credible professional economists who think that the above, as well as most of what you say, is true. You don't see it because you don't want to. As it is in most other cases of people adamantly holding ridiculous positions, no argument, no demonstration of fact, nothing, can change their position.


I must commend you on your expert Poe, however. It's nearly impossible to tell if you're real or parody, so good job there

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

I'm sure Lyric will eventually concede this point but I'm wondering why its important that a shit ton, more than anyone in the world could ever need or want, is different than infinity.

---

Danny did you see the video I posted called 'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss?

The universe is probably going to expand forever, energy is never destroyed, and we can continue harnessing the energy of the universe forever, eternally building and exchanging.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

lol.. You cannot be serious? Nearly none of these things are possibly accomplished by one man in one life time. Develop medicines? Really? Do you not recognize how many thousands of years it took people to develop herbal remedies, half of which were not remedies at all but just simply old wives tales. Do you propose that this sole human is just born with the knowledge of basic architecture? How many different styles of homes do you think were created before a given culture found a relatively easy to make and safe one? What happens when Joe Islander twists his ankle after hopping down from harvesting coconuts? Hes dead.. that's what happens.

Even so, we could ignore the absurd claims to Joe's potential accomplishments and just say that he could forage for the bare minimum of fruits/nuts/vegetables per day or he could get a little extra. That little extra would allow him to have some free time in the following day or week. So yes, he can be "richer" to and extent, but just barely. And even if we go back and accept your claims of his potential accomplishments, as wuf said, he still cannot possibly be anywhere near as rich as he could be with a society to prop him up. So while you have technically countered my analogy, you have done so in the weakest fashion. As far as I can see my point still stands.

---

You said a man can not be rich or poor if he's alone. Lyric said this isn't true and pointed out how he can be rich or poor. The amount he can do or what he can do was not his point, in fact I'm pretty sure from the points he's making he agrees a man can become much richer when there are more people in society, although I doubt he views this as "society propping him up."

Anyways, my point is that I don't get why you are so seemingly outraged by his answer. I'm also surprised that you think that most people are so dumb that if one was on an island, all he or she could figure out is how to forage for enough berries to survive leaving him 5 minutes to jerk it every once in a while.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

Ok, so at some point one of you said "well the government should pay for schools through taxation, its the other stuff that they waste tax dollars on that takes away from school funding."

So I'd like a list of areas it is acceptable for the gov't to spend tax money.

In advance I would just like to point out that whatever area it is not ok (in your libertarian view) for the gov't to spend tax money on, I'll just plug into my previous argument wherever "school" was used.

---

I don't think I can provide you with a list, it would take too much time for me to look at everything. I find very little of it to be ideal. There are some things, such as public transportation and public schools which I find acceptable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

lol, I feel like this is true but at the same time, Bill Gates got how many billionaires to promise how much of their wealth to charity? Bill Gates and Warren Buffett Organize Billionaire Giving Pledge - ABC News

---

Piss in the ocean. The whole fact that this is newsworthy, and how we still tell stories about some samaritan dude who wasn't a complete douche tells everything there is to know about the general charitableness of mankind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyric

As it stands modern science thinks time goes on forever and if that is the case wealth can go on forever as well.

---

Load of rubbish. We currently assume that time started with the big bang, but we have absolutely no clue what/where/when/why/how it happened and what, if anything, was before it. Likewise, we have no idea, just a bunch of theories, such as big crunch, big freeze, big rip, big bounce etc. on the end of time/universe. We don't know if there are one, several or an infinite number of universes, nor whether any of them are finite or infinite. We know 4.6% of the observable universe is "matter", and the rest of it is something we call dark matter and dark energy, even though we have no clue what they actually are or whether they even exist. So no, modern science does not think that time is infinite.


Another quick note on flat vs. progressive income tax. To demonstrate why progressive taxing is the more "fair" alternative consider this example:

Each person requires a certain amount of money for basic necessities, such as food and accommodation. Typically national minimum wages are set at or around the minimum income necessary to be self-sufficient, let's use an arbitrary figure of $25,000/yr to represent this.

We have that rich guy, middle class guy and an armless guy from the island, and all pay a flat taxrate of 20%. Rich guy makes $500,000/yr, leaving him $400,000 after taxes. He pays the basic necessities and is left with $375,000 (or 75% of his gross income) to spend on luxuries in life. Middle class guy makes $150,000/yr, ie. $120,000-25,000=$95,000, or 63.3%. The armless guy makes $36k/yr by sucking the other two at the island corner, leaving him $3800 a year or 10.5% of his incum after taxes and basic necessities. Progressive taxation was created to alleviate this clear discrepancy.

If this tax progression is removed, the poor suffer and the rich gain, both unproportionally. If income taxation or, in fact, taxation, government and social services in a larger sense are eradicated, only the poor (read: working class) suffer from it. The rich don't need affordable medical insurance, they can pay the bills just fine for any exotic procedures and pay without blinking. The rich don't need police or schools or fire department, no roads no libraries, nothing. They can just buy that shit if they happen to need it. All of these, however, are completely out of the reach of the general population, of the other 95%, who cannot afford them without socialized commie hippie governments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WillburForce

Why should my next door neighbours child have a worse education than my child because I have more money?

---

I'm not saying rich people should have a better education than poor people. I'm not saying vice versa either. To obtain value from other people (a good education) you must exchange it for other value (money). Do you think educators should work for free?

Why does your neighbor have more money than you? It's because he has provided people with value from a good or service in exchange for money. That person values education so he chooses to pay more to send his child to a more expensive school.

Also note that just because someone has more money than you doesn't mean he's getting a better education. Some rich people send their kids to public school. Some poor parents, like my mom, sent me through private school. This is beside the point though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

I really have no words. There are literally zero credible professional economists who think that the above, as well as most of what you say, is true. You don't see it because you don't want to. As it is in most other cases of people adamantly holding ridiculous positions, no argument, no demonstration of fact, nothing, can change their position.

---

"The problem was that not only were these mortgages based on housing prices inflated by the Federal Reserve's low-interest rate policies, many of the home buyers had been granted mortgages under federal government pressures on lenders to lend to people who would not ordinarily qualify, whether because of low income, bad credit history or other factors likely to make them bigger credit risks.
This was not something that federal regulatory agencies permitted. It was something that federal regulatory agencies -- under pressure from politicians -- pressured and threatened lenders into doing in the name of "affordable housing."
The housing market collapse was set off when the Federal Reserve returned interest rates to more normal levels, but it was a financial house of cards that was due to collapse, sending shock waves through the economy. It was just a matter of when, not if."

--THOMAS SOWELL, PHD Economics, senior fellow of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. He graduated from Harvard University in 1958, magna cum laude with a BA in Economics. He received his masters in Economics from Columbia University in 1959, and PHD in Economics from the University of Chicago. He has taught Economics at Howard University, Cornell University, Brandeis University, and UCLA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

Why does your neighbor have more money than you? It's because he has provided people with value from a good or service in exchange for money. That person values education so he chooses to pay more to send his child to a more expensive school.

---

Are you sure this isn't more up to your race, class, sex, geographical location, time, parent's wealth, circumstances, environment, rather than just your personal choices and abilities? We don't live in a vacuum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

We have that rich guy, middle class guy and an armless guy from the island, and all pay a flat taxrate of 20%. Rich guy makes $500,000/yr, leaving him $400,000 after taxes. He pays the basic necessities and is left with $375,000 (or 75% of his gross income) to spend on luxuries in life. Middle class guy makes $150,000/yr, ie. $120,000-25,000=$95,000, or 63.3%. The armless guy makes $36k/yr by sucking the other two at the island corner, leaving him $3800 a year or 10.5% of his incum after taxes and basic necessities. Progressive taxation was created to alleviate this clear discrepancy.

If this tax progression is removed, the poor suffer and the rich gain, both unproportionally..

---

Hmm interesting point.

One point, it's true if a progressive tax is removed the rich gain and the poor "suffer." But having any income tax at all is taking from the rich and giving to the poor, the poor are gaining significantly and the rich are losing for nothing. You said it yourself, rich people don't need many public services.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyric

"The problem was that not only were these mortgages based on housing prices inflated by the Federal Reserve's low-interest rate policies, many of the home buyers had been granted mortgages under federal government pressures on lenders to lend to people who would not ordinarily qualify, whether because of low income, bad credit history or other factors likely to make them bigger credit risks.
This was not something that federal regulatory agencies permitted. It was something that federal regulatory agencies -- under pressure from politicians -- pressured and threatened lenders into doing in the name of "affordable housing."
The housing market collapse was set off when the Federal Reserve returned interest rates to more normal levels, but it was a financial house of cards that was due to collapse, sending shock waves through the economy. It was just a matter of when, not if."

--THOMAS SOWELL, PHD Economics, senior fellow of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. He graduated from Harvard University in 1958, magna cum laude with a BA in Economics. He received his masters in Economics from Columbia University in 1959, and PHD in Economics from the University of Chicago. He has taught Economics at Howard University, Cornell University, Brandeis University, and UCLA.

---

Come on, Stanford? Harvard? Magna Cum Laude in Economics? This can't possibly be right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Numbr2intheWorld

But having any income tax at all is taking from the rich and giving to the poor, the poor are gaining significantly and the rich are losing for nothing. You said it yourself, rich people don't need many public services.

---

You're absolutely right, only the poor do. Starting positions are not the same for everyone and resources tend to end up getting spread unevenly. We can either choose to have some sort of organization by the people for the people to ensure a more even distribution and more equal rights, or just let things be. The latter is typically called anarchy and social darwinism.