|
|
 Originally Posted by wufwugy
I think regions that have embraced capitalism are less violent and more secure than all others. I think that necessarily means that violence is not the ultimate deciding factor and instead can be mitigated.
Not being smirky but I'm watching Planet Earth right now
Violence is the deciding factor. Nothing can supersede it. The only thing that can deter it is either minimizing it or matching it.
I totally understand your point, and it is technically correct, but I think it is also correct to say that capitalism operates outside of states. It isn't through bureaucratic direction that capitalists have created new things, new industries, new environments, new cultures. Yet it is in areas where the state intervenes that capitalism has had great difficulty creating new stuff
Is there something special about why capitalists require being taxed and subjected to absolute law in order to secure their environments?
It's not about capitalists. It's about people.
That's great. I love them as well.
If I'm trying to get anything out of you, it's for you to tease out why monopolies work well for violence yet not for anything else.
Alright, first thought: Necessity. If I can kill you and you can't kill me, why rest on that? Why not use that to get what I want? Like your wife. She's cute. Give her to me.
Youtube = Braveheart Right of First Night. (couldn't find it)
I don't think economics denies this. It tries to account for it as best it can. Standard risk-reward assessment. They say the coursework that econ students take after the rationality stuff is irrationality stuff.
I recognize this. But in doing so, they're writing a story and not crafting an understanding.
I think the type of statement is accepted since the denominator is all possible options. Values and costs and all the above are inherently relative. To be specific about what Renton said, he had the so-called default option of investing the 10 million into a virtually risk-free but low-return product (say, government bonds). He feels that he would need 7% return on the higher risk investment in order to cover the opportunity cost of not investing in the default option. The same applies to whatever else he may have wanted to invest in
I know in his shoes, I'd decline many investment that didn't measure up, along these same lines.
|
Reply With Quote