A few weeks ago I made a thread asking people whether they considered liberty or equality to be more important. The response was overwhelmingly in favour of liberty. How can this be, considering that this board has so many socialists?
>>618346
This board doesn't have that many socialists, and part of socialism is (from their perspective) aiming for liberty.
As far as socialists are concerned private property is simply another form of bondage through the need to sell your labour to survive, so were the means of production to be controlled by the workers this class bondage wouldn't exist and they would be more free.
Socialists see socialism as very conducive to freedom, moreso than capitalism.
>>618353
But aren't they still in favor of a planned economy? How could that be free?
>>618382
this Socialism and Liberalism don't mixed
Socialism is economic slavery through taxation
>>618382
They see capitalism as a planned economy by the bourgeoisie, vs. socialism, a democratically planned economy.
>>618393
>democratically planned economy
you mean what a bunch of ignorant workers? people who don't know how economics work?
Also I have doubt that they choose what the the state choose to do, Socialism create a new bureaucratic elite that choose what to do, a new bourgeoisie
>>618426
Don't bureaucratic specialists know more about macroeconomics than shareholders do?
>>618433
>mfw when a socialist claim to know more than a businessman
"bureaucratic specialists" are administrators not businessmen, they only do paper work
go back to your Marxist "economics"
>>618433
Not that I am aware of. Why would they?
Complete liberty is something human cannot achieve. Same can be said for equality, but pursuit for equality is not human construct like liberty, so equality for me.
Are liberty and equality mutually exclusive?
They're of equivalent importance. Liberty without equality isn't liberty in any meaningful sense.
>>618656
Not necessarily, but the question was which one was more important.
>>618346
I don't think this board is filled with socialists. I remember your thread and I thought there was quite a balanced mix of capitalists and socialists debating.
>>618346
Most of the time the word equality is evoked in a political discussion, it means more or less equal rights and chances for individuals to be succesful, not complete economic equality. The perfect political system is one where one is completely free to do anything that does not directly harm/ruin others or their and public property, but the state keeps a social net below the populus to keep everyone from falling into a vicious cycle of poverty. The rich should be very heavily and progressively taxed above a certain level of income, but taxation should also take into account that how much of their income does invest back into his businesses that create value and how much one spends on over-the-top luxury.
>>620033
I fucked up the sentences, it's late.
>>618346
>A few weeks ago I made a thread asking people whether they considered liberty or equality to be more important. The response was overwhelmingly in favour of liberty. How can this be, considering that this board has so many socialists?
Because they're both liberal conceptions of politics. Watch Foucault in Chomsky v Foucault on the issue of if the proletariat can be "morally" wrong.
The only answer for a communist is: POWER TO THE CLASS. Communists do not perceive the individual human as "protectable," but only as existing in their collective social relations. A collective with power will necessarily achieve its freedom from military interference, and curious features of the proletariat mean that the only way it can come to power is through solidarity.
Not surprisingly given that this board is actually dominated by liberals, both traditional rights liberals and R2P rights liberals, they answer in a liberal mode.
Read more post-modern critique of the enlightenment, because you're obviously not ready to read the marxist tradition in this area.
>>618346
>this board has so many socialists
vocal minority, silent majority
NOT
A
CROOK
>>618656
Equality in what sense of the word?
>>618346
>How can this be, considering that this board has so many socialists?
> It was real in my mind
>>620033
>The rich should be very heavily and progressively taxed above a certain level of income
Why? Can you honestly give a good reason for this?
>>620123
Because high inequality stiffles liberty
I would add that there should be a high inheritance tax, so the people would have equality of opportunity
>>620123
Prevents the guys that are already on top (big business coalition, monopolists) from curb-stomping the climbers (small businesses, new entrepreneurs, self-made men).
Our society has made great strides in this direction. Maybe it's just a consequence of our reliance on technology, on new ideas. I'd like to see more of it.
Obviously most of us aren't that kind of socialist. Most of us parroted socialist rhetoric until Bernie Sanders came along.
>>620161
>Because high inequality stiffles liberty
How? Seriously, can you explain this to me?
How does someone becoming richer affects a poorer person liberty?
>>620161
>I would add that there should be a high inheritance tax, so the people would have equality of opportunity
Why should the government get more money to make a single person poorer?
>>620191
Is heavy taxation the way to stop monopolies now? Do you really think this works? Do you think that by taxing Apple and Microsoft more somehow the world will become a better, freer place?
>>620207
It's one way. The climb ought to get harder the further up you get, so as to prevent exponential concentration of wealth.
I sympathize with tech developers specially. Not sure I can be unbiased here. If you'd say Walmart or some banking firm, I'd have an easier time answering: but you aren't so stupid as to give me such an easy target.
>>620252
Still, why is exponential concentration of wealth a problem? What is the problem with someone buying a couple of mansions?
You can say that political interference is a problem when someone gets too rich, but somehow your solution is too give more money to the government and the crooked politicians.
Also, what is the problem with Walmart? Selling cheap things to poor people doesn't seem evil to me.
And please, don't tell me that banks are evil.
People don't need loans. They get loans because it is better to spend 30 years in a nice house while paying for it then waiting 30 years saving up money under a cardboard
>>620202
If Bernie Sanders were a socialist, Bill Gates would not support him, I grantee you that.
>>620308
>Still, why is exponential concentration of wealth a problem? What is the problem with someone buying a couple of mansions?
Buying mansions isn't a problem. The concentration of wealth is a problem because then there is less wealth to go around for everyone else. Assuming wealth isn't produced, but even then it tends to be accrued by those that already have more means (i.e. the rich get richer).
>You can say that political interference is a problem when someone gets too rich, but somehow your solution is too give more money to the government and the crooked politicians.
Government has failings, but so do corporations. It's not like CEOs don't crash their corps and exit with golden parachutes. Either way, corporations a priori are interested in accruing wealth, rather than providing essential services. In this, corporations are supposed to work in the opposite direction of government, that accrues wealth to provide infrastructure, physical protection, education, health care, etc.
>Also, what is the problem with Walmart? Selling cheap things to poor people doesn't seem evil to me.
Let's not get moralistic. Walmart and such stores push ma and pa operations out of the market. They offer bad work conditions.
>And please, don't tell me that banks are evil.
No, they can be useful of course. Just like they can be dangerous. This is observable. They should be kept in check, is all.
>People don't need loans. They get loans because it is better to spend 30 years in a nice house while paying for it then waiting 30 years saving up money under a cardboard
OK.
>>620350
Not that guy, but...
>The concentration of wealth is a problem because then there is less wealth to go around for everyone else
Literally the zero-sum fallacy m8.
>corporations are interested in accruing wealth rather than providing essential services
Who decides what services are essential? Why do they get precedence? Why should people who don't know you and have no reason to pay for your infrastructure, education, or health care? Why is that fair?
>push ma and pa shops out of the market
Meanwhile everyone else in the community benefits from the low prices. It's a net societal gain. Also, Wal-mart's average wage for full-time employees is above $13 iirc.
>>620207
>How does someone becoming richer affects a poorer person liberty?
This question is too broad to really be answered in a way you will ever find completely satisfactory. If all you want is one example however, I'll oblige:
When a slave owner is empowered by the state to suppress the liberty of his slaves, he uses the value created from their labor to enrich himself.
Right here it is obvious how he is directly causing them to be poor, and the fact that he doesn't have to compensate them for the value of their work creates a larger profit for himself. He becomes richer because they remain poor.
>>620350
>Buying mansions isn't a problem. The concentration of wealth is a problem because then there is less wealth to go around for everyone else. Assuming wealth isn't produced, but even then it tends to be accrued by those that already have more means (i.e. the rich get richer).
Wealth is produced, so your first point is invalid. Secondly, you're leaving out the fact that classes can and do gain wealth together (class in an increasingly archaic notion).
>corporations a priori are interested in accruing wealth
Not necessarily.
>In this, corporations are supposed to work in the opposite direction of government, that accrues wealth to provide infrastructure, physical protection, education, health care, etc.
Really? Many times governments accrue money to dole out for special interests. They work towards whatever the politicians want.
>Let's not get moralistic. Walmart and such stores push ma and pa operations out of the market. They offer bad work conditions.
Sounds like you're the one being moralistic. Ma and pa shops go out of business because customers want cheaper products as provided by larger, more efficient establishments like Walmart. The work conditions are not bad. Is the pay high? Comparatively speaking, no. But that's because so many people can work the jobs.
Equality is a necessary condition for liberty. The concentration of economic and political power necessarily leads to less liberty on those less favoured in an unequal society.
>>618382
Socialism =/= planned economy.
>>618450
>go back to your Marxist "economics"
Marx never mentions anything related to what you are replying to. Do you enjoy being ignorant?
>>620365
>Literally the zero-sum fallacy m8.
But I did add "Assuming wealth isn't produced, but even then it tends to be accrued by those that already have more means (i.e. the rich get richer)."
>Who decides what services are essential? Why do they get precedence? Why should people who don't know you and have no reason to pay for your infrastructure, education, or health care? Why is that fair?
Assuming we are operating within a democratic, the majority will define it's own priorities. They will define these in accordance with their current sensibilities and needs. Fairness doesn't factor into realpolitik.
>>620365
>Meanwhile everyone else in the community benefits from the low prices. It's a net societal gain. Also, Wal-mart's average wage for full-time employees is above $13 iirc.
Low prices are pretty sweet, yes. Like I said, corporations are cool. But the fact of the matter is that they do constrict the market. Because of them, self-employment becomes less accessible for the population. By pushing competition out of the market, there are less work stations outside of the hegemonic organization. More and more, the options of the worker are gone one by one. In time, this organization is the de facto planner of that economy.
>>618382
http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2016/01/capitalism-vs-markets.html
>>620207
>How does someone becoming richer affects a poorer person liberty?
When someone is more powerful than you, and they exercise that power, you lose liberty.
Labor unions increase liberty, social welfare programs increase liberty. More choices, more leverage vs. those more powerful than you = more liberty. The right wing appropriation of the term "liberty" to mean "the least number of counterweights to the prerogatives of the rich" needs to be reversed.
>>620386
>muh slave owners
Is this the example you can think off? Slavery is less profitable than work in a free market, however we always have a lot of it in places where the government is all about equality. Second, how does it represent freedom in any sense?
Also, would progressive taxes on slave owners end slavery?
>>620422
The thing is, no true libertarian is against labour unions. They are just another piece in the free market. The thing is, why do you think CEOs are evil and the government is good? Why do you think taxing CEOs and giving money to the government going to solve anything?
>>620387
>Wealth is produced, so your first point is invalid. Secondly, you're leaving out the fact that classes can and do gain wealth together (class in an increasingly archaic notion).
The first point, wealth, must be contextualized. Going back several hundred years back, land-ownership would've been a good measure of wealth. The quantity of available land wouldn't have fluctuated much. If we are talking money, and I suspect we are, an increase in quantity comes with a decrease in value: prices rise if everyone has a lot of it. So, in this, the problem approaches a zero-sum game, because more money for everyone doesn't really mean more purchasing power for everyone. I suppose we could have a lengthy discussion on what should be understood by "wealth". When you say classes gain wealth together what do you mean? Do you mean how our standards of life have increased? Do you not agree that these changes can be better explained outside an economic perspective?
>Not necessarily.
Suppose we could be talking about non-profits, but I believe we are not.
>Really? Many times governments accrue money to dole out for special interests. They work towards whatever the politicians want.
True, and this is a problem. Often, these special interests are the for-profit corporations we are talking about. Even so, the social state keeps running.
>Sounds like you're the one being moralistic. Ma and pa shops go out of business because customers want cheaper products as provided by larger, more efficient establishments like Walmart. The work conditions are not bad. Is the pay high? Comparatively speaking, no. But that's because so many people can work the jobs.
All true. I was countering your comment "selling cheap things to poor people doesn't seem evil to me" with factoids that could be deemed evil at-first. You could've said "educating and vaccinating poor children doesn't seem evil to me" if you wanted to make a pro-government argument. Either way, it's oversimplification.
>>620415
It's still the zero-sum fallacy, even if you're begging for an exception based on a "non-productive" scenario. Most companies do produce or provide services.
And the market is already democratic, in that people vote with their wallets for what is important to them individually. We cannot make everyone equal in income because that means there is no paying more for necessary professions (doctors, builders, etc.) as opposed to more useless ones. A person managing a massive grocery company can command a higher pay check for pleasing a larger amount of people than a person who produces specialized art for a niche market.
>Fairness doesn't factor into realpolitik
You're kind of saying that morality ought not to have a place in politics then if you say that you endorse realpolitik in such a way. You mean it in a pragmatic sense, but I can assure you that if you don't need to justify your demands beyond just saying you want it that way, you're in for a bad time when your opponents start doing the same.
>they constrict the market
Without these companies entire markets would not exist in some regions. You don't see what the markets were like before they entered and assume they would be the same size beforehand.
>self-employment becomes less accessible for the population
So why should people pay more just to support the self-employed? Why do they deserve more money from people for providing the same services at a higher cost?
>the options of the worker are gone one by one
You're implying that opportunities created by the companies would have been present without the companies.
>this organization is the de facto planner of that economy
The ultimate planner of the economy in a market system is the person who's willing to put up their own money for what they want.
>>620462
>Slavery is less profitable than work in a free market
Wage slavery is used by every corporation as soon as they have a chance to.
>The thing is, why do you think CEOs are evil and the government is good? Why do you think taxing CEOs and giving money to the government going to solve anything?
You're caricaturizating your opposition.
>>620477
>And the market is already democratic, in that people vote with their wallets for what is important to them individually.
If people vote with their wallet, the weight of their vote is proportional to their wealth, which is the opposite of a democratic society.
>>620462
>Is this the example you can think off?
Do you mean is it the only example I can think of? no it isn't but it's an obvious example
>Slavery is less profitable than work in a free market, however we always have a lot of it in places where the government is all about equality.
define free market, then give me an example of this enhanced profitability.
>Second, how does it represent freedom in any sense?
what?
>Also, would progressive taxes on slave owners end slavery?
No that's completely ridiculous. I wasn't the person you were talking to previously, I was just giving you an example how individual freedom can be stifled for the benefit of those with power.
>>620477
>And the market is already democratic, in that people vote with their wallets for what is important to them individually.
Agreed partially. Some people have more voting power than others and the people that individually have more voting power are all part of a minority meaning their interests are over-represented.
>>620477
>We cannot make everyone equal in income because that means there is no paying more for necessary professions (doctors, builders, etc.) as opposed to more useless ones. A person managing a massive grocery company can command a higher pay check for pleasing a larger amount of people than a person who produces specialized art for a niche market.
Agreed.
>>620477
>You're kind of saying that morality ought not to have a place in politics then if you say that you endorse realpolitik in such a way. You mean it in a pragmatic sense, but I can assure you that if you don't need to justify your demands beyond just saying you want it that way, you're in for a bad time when your opponents start doing the same.
I wasn't making demands. And I'm not really justifying any real position. I'm just arguing. We agree that our hypothetical society is a democratic one?
>>620477
>Without these companies entire markets would not exist in some regions. You don't see what the markets were like before they entered and assume they would be the same size beforehand.
I'm not clear on this. Sorry?
>So why should people pay more just to support the self-employed? Why do they deserve more money from people for providing the same services at a higher cost?
>You're implying that opportunities created by the companies would have been present without the companies.
No, I'm implying the bigger companies can bully smaller companies out of the playground. Smaller companies have a harder time becoming bigger. Bigger companies have an easier time becoming bigger.
cont.
>>620542
>The ultimate planner of the economy in a market system is the person who's willing to put up their own money for what they want.
The ultimate planners are the ones that have more money to put down for what they want. Often that is more money.
That isn't to say that rich people aren't just that: people. They mostly aren't robber barons or anything like that. But the organizations they are part of, for-profit corporations, are united by their shared interest: profit. It's the corporations themselves that are the planners (in this scenario where the government apparently doesn't intervene in the economy besides vouching for the currency).
It's 3 am here.
What time is there?
>>620499
Weighted democratic systems have existed before, but that's not egalitarian democracy which is better for government. France's Three Estates were a good example of weighted democracy in action, if I'm remembering them right. But the economy is not a government.
And you can't have everyone with equal wealth, because the moment someone makes a business then the wealth is inequal again as they acquire more money to provide goods/services. Besides, costs play a real role in societal organization through supply and demand - what society wants will be made cheaper through competition, what it doesn't want will be made more unprofitable.
>>620542
>over-represented interests
For many (to most) of these people, they have been enriched by providing society what they want. The wealth of the rich doesn't offset the average person's market too much, though, because they are very few people compared to the much larger number of people you can chase for more easily guaranteed income. A rich man only needs to buy so many meals a day, whereas a neighborhood must buy many more, for instance.
>We agree that our hypothetical society is a democratic one?
Yes, a republican democracy would be the technical term.
>I'm not clear on this.
Well, without these companies moving into these areas the markets they compete in might not have even existed. So they can constrict the economy on competing producers' end, but on the consumer's end the market has expanded greatly as more large companies move in to compete for their business.
And bigger companies ought not to bully smaller companies... if those smaller companies can legitimately out-compete them. Unfortunately, many companies get help from government. The biggest opponents of free market capitalism, it is said, is successful capitalists. Regulation can actual strangle small companies, as well as increased taxes. So government intervention to break up/restrict big business end up preventing smaller ones from doing better too.
>>620561
Refer to my answer in to the other poster in >>620584 for a little more elaborate response. The rich can spend money all they like, but if they can't spend it in ways that are unfair to competitors (such as lobbying, shady "donations," etc.) then they can't upset the market too much. They might buy mega yachts and other stupid stuff, but there are so few of them compared to the wider population that they normal man's market is not much impacted by the rich man's spending.
And corporations can plan all they like, if people don't like them then they will fall apart as their profits fall. Wal-mart was seriously hurt by activists disparaging them for the wages they pay their workers, and to improve their image and secure their profits they decided to bite the bullet and issue pay raises to most full-time staff across much of the country. At the end of the day, they're dependent on society's whims.
>>620584
>And bigger companies ought not to bully smaller companies... if those smaller companies can legitimately out-compete them. Unfortunately, many companies get help from government. The biggest opponents of free market capitalism, it is said, is successful capitalists. Regulation can actual strangle small companies, as well as increased taxes. So government intervention to break up/restrict big business end up preventing smaller ones from doing better too.
The argument would be that bigger companies should be more tightly regulated than smaller companies and that corporate welfare should be much more restricted.
Also, why wouldn't wouldn't bigger companies bully the smaller companies that can legitimately out-compete them? Those are threats to them.
Don't even big tech developers buy-out start-ups that have potential to grow while it's early?
>>620584
>Weighted democratic systems have existed before, but that's not egalitarian democracy which is better for government.
They certainly aren't democratic as far as the etymological definition of "government by the people" is concerned. And if people are being governed by an economic elite, they certainly aren't free. Which is the current situation.
>And you can't have everyone with equal wealth
Sure, you can't. Under capitalism.
>Besides, costs play a real role in societal organization through supply and demand - what society wants will be made cheaper through competition, what it doesn't want will be made more unprofitable.
But that's false. People send price signals through demand, which is, as you said, like voting with your wallet. A person with no or minimal wealth sends no price signal and has therefore no say in capital allocation and their needs are ignored.
Both economic and political organization is thus controlled by an economic elite, in detriment of the average joe's freedom.
I'm getting a headache.
I hope this is up tomorrow.
I wanted to say I did enjoy talking to you guys.
G'night.
I was >>620609.
>>618346
i think there is a large confusion between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome.
people seem to confuse the two often.
i believe a liberal is one who would hold to equality of opportunity, as equality of outcome would be something to tarnish liberty innately, and equality of opportunity is something that is a product OF liberty.
>>620609
The only way for big companies to bully small ones is to use government against them, or to play dirty and risk losses in order to harm the competition. It's very bad for both parties, a "fuck me fuck you" that could backfire very easily. In a world where profits are usually marginal in most industries, it's a bold strategy, Cotton.
And yes, buy-outs do happen but that's voluntary on the part of the other company. Nothing even government could do to stop that if the sellers really wanted to sell.
>>620611
I was just saying there's more than one form of democracy, historically speaking. It distracts a bit from what we're actually talking about though, so I apologize about that.
And look, there are very real consequences to having forcibly equalized wealth. This is something all socialist and communist/"communist" countries discovered the hard way. Some things are just more needed than others, such as doctors, so we pay them more. Those who provide for the wants of the greater society are repaid for their efforts in kind, usually in proportion to how much what they provide is valued.
And the poor are still able to send a "price signal" as you call it. They are better able to climb the wealth ladder in a market system as well, as they accumulate money slowly over time and possibly move into new professions.
In the US, the poverty level is lower than what you would make working 40 hours a week at minimum wage. There is more to poverty than a simple lack of money.
>controlled by an economic elite
Who are at the whims of the people who pay their bills. The money flow can be turned off at any time, so they need to keep trying to meet society's needs. They're not a very powerful elite, even if they are wealthy.
>>620626
It's only 10:30pm here. G'night man, thanks for the discussion.
>>620643
>The only way for big companies to bully small ones is to use government against them
No it is not, and those are the words of an ideologue. Government is but one of the forms to bully smaller companies. Why would you risk running afoul of the government when you could have government sanctioned advantages? The government also is responsible for prohibiting certain noncompetitive conduct.
It's true that some entities benefit from large government, but there are also entities that would benefit from less government. It's not as clear cut as big government helps big business, and small government would help small business.
>to play dirty and risk losses in order to harm the competition.
This does not have nearly the potential people argue it does without collectivized bargaining, as it pretty much turns into a tragedy of the commons scenario with individual consumers.
>And yes, buy-outs do happen but that's voluntary on the part of the other company. Nothing even government could do to stop that if the sellers really wanted to sell.
And now your opinion goes into the trash because you don't even understand the government's role in anti-trust and as a trust-breaker.
>>620643
>I was just saying there's more than one form of democracy, historically speaking. It distracts a bit from what we're actually talking about though, so I apologize about that.
Not that guy but I thought it was a decent point and somewhat illuminated the situation of familiar systems within a wider space of possible systems.
>>620659
I acknowledged that businesses can play dirty, but that's always a risky move. Life won't be perfect, and sometimes the bad guy will win, but the idea behind a just system is that you would rather a wrongly accused innocent man go free even if that means a criminal must as well. So a just system mustn't resort to unjust means to preserve justice, because we could lose sight of justice itself. We don't need an economic Batman.
And people are capable of organizing to oppose individual companies just as they are able to organize and oppose anything else. Wal-mart's a special target of hate.
>anti-trust is good
Anti-trust is often abused; it could be good, but its potential for abuse is a dealbreaker imo.
Rockefeller's enemies used anti-trust ideas to hamper his business rather than compete with him directly. Meanwhile, the fact that he had much more market control than his competitors was that he was much more efficient and smart about his organization and transportation of goods. He shipped oil in tankards while all his dumbass competitors shipped in heavy iron barrels, weighing down the trains more and costing more in fuel, and that was only one example of his superior innovations. His opponents just wanted to get their money without improving their own companies.
Unfortunately, we can't create a perfect system because we are very flawed beings. We must choose between various trade-offs and decide what the best possible outcome could be, and strive the good.
>>620686
Thanks senpai, but it was a bit of a digression I suppose. The problem is we usually use "democracy" as a shorthand for "republican democracy," which causes a lot of confusion in just what entails "democracy."
>>620643
>And look, there are very real consequences to having forcibly equalized wealth. This is something all socialist and communist/"communist" countries discovered the hard way. Some things are just more needed than others, such as doctors, so we pay them more.
This is a pretty bad example. Cuba is full of doctors for example. Low paying jobs are usually very shitty jobs too (funny considering mainstream economics sees wages as compensation for the disutility of working), so i never really understood this argument. For all the economic problems "communist" countries had, lack of professionals wasn't one of them (except for human capital flight).
>And the poor are still able to send a "price signal" as you call it. They are better able to climb the wealth ladder in a market system as well, as they accumulate money slowly over time and possibly move into new professions.
They can't.
The "climb the ladder" bit is pretty naive, especially if you look at capitalism as a global system. How much of a chance to climb the ladder do you think the half of the world living with less than a dollar per day has?
>Who are at the whims of the people who pay their bills. The money flow can be turned off at any time, so they need to keep trying to meet society's needs. They're not a very powerful elite, even if they are wealthy.
Again, naive. First, as piketty points out, if the interest gained on their wealth is higher than the growth of the economy, they will increasing their share of income without (necessarily) meeting anyone's needs. Second, as pointed before, they don't meet society's needs, they meet wealthy people's needs. Third, i don't see how meeting society's needs would justify an economic elite's control of society.
But the discussion's topic is drifting away. It seems to me that you implicitly agree that capitalism isn't democratic, if by democratic we mean a system in which every person has the same weight. Your defense of capitalism seems purely practical.
>>620714
Doctors in communist countries actually made more than the average wage. All of my friends in Russia who have some money have a parent with a background in the medical sector- but to be rich you'd need to be buttbuddies w/ Putin.
Be careful with Cuba too, they regularly lie about all aspects of their society. Turning to the black market is so common that it's pretty much a gray market.
They can buy things, just not as much. Climbing the ladder has worked very well, because the proportion of the world living on a dollar per day has actually fallen even as the population has increased in the past two decades it has almost halved. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usdJgEwMinM
>Piketty
From what I've heard, he's an ideologue who's got conclusions before he studies his subject, and his studies end up being his per-determiend conclusions. That's a red flag right there.
And if the rich are concentrating the wealth, then the wealthy are not growing in numbers, and the normal population is. The normal population spends more on more things than the rich do, and so the obvious choice as a business is to chase the largest number of people. A grocery store will seek to provide to all neighborhoods nearby, rather than import diamond-studded carrots just for the rich man down the street.
Normal people just engage in exchange in larger numbers and at a higher frequency than the rich, making them a dominant market force even as the rich own a large amount of wealth.
And they don't control society, society controls them to a great extent. It's a duality of competing control in different ways through different means, ensuring the relationship remains beneficial... ensuring a mess that could topple the disgraced rich.
Capitalism isn't democratic, but because it's not a government and force is not involved in market exchange (for the most part), it's not a bad system. Democracy is good for government because government has, as libertarians point out, a monopoly on force.
>>620711
>I acknowledged that businesses can play dirty, but that's always a risky move. Life won't be perfect, and sometimes the bad guy will win
It's not nearly as risky as ideologues who say vote with your wallet assume. It requires a large body of well informed individuals who have a strong ideological will. Anything short of this, and a tragedy of the commons scenario will occur.
>So a just system mustn't resort to unjust means to preserve justice, because we could lose sight of justice itself. We don't need an economic Batman.
Pants on head. What the fuck are you even trying to say?
>Anti-trust is often abused; it could be good, but its potential for abuse is a dealbreaker imo.
This is also pants on head retarded.
>Rockefeller's enemies used anti-trust ideas to hamper his business rather than compete with him directly. Meanwhile, the fact that he had much more market control than his competitors was that he was much more efficient and smart about his organization and transportation of goods. He shipped oil in tankards while all his dumbass competitors shipped in heavy iron barrels, weighing down the trains more and costing more in fuel, and that was only one example of his superior innovations. His opponents just wanted to get their money without improving their own companies.
No, it's because of vertical and horizontal integration which made it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to tap into the same innovations Standard Oil used to out compete them.
>>620743
A tragedy of the commons isn't the right thing to describe what you're getting at. But people ought to be informed about what they're buying anyway. You can't whisk away human stupidity.
And I'm trying to say that we should not let fear of bad elements rule our judgement. People ought to be free to do what they want if it doesn't hurt anyone (inb4 pollution, that hurts someone and ought to be paid for).
And it's true. Companies will use trustbusting to harm competitors. Who do you think flags "trusts" anyway? The people who most want to see them fall.
And vertical and horizontal integration were great. All those people had great jobs, and the consumers got their oil at lower and lower prices. So the only people who lost out were his competitors. Why should we reward inefficiency by hamstringing those who do better? It has a real cost to the people who will pay the increased price, and will disproportionately harm the poor or small businesses.
>>620750
Well the tragedy of the commons actually was wealth capitalists and aristocrats using parliament as their play thing to enrich themselves from the commonwealth, the commonwealth that a vast majority of the population relied upon for their human dignity and core living standards. (Hammond & Hammond, Village Labourer).
>>620766
s/wealth/wealthy
>>620766
Yeah, those situations are bad news bears. I got what you meant though, even though it wasn't a directly transferable comparison. If that makes sense. Hurr.
>>620750
>A tragedy of the commons isn't the right thing to describe what you're getting at
It's close, and it's well known. Your argument is that anti-competitive behavior is against the best interests of the group, and therefore individuals will act accordingly. The reality is individual consumers will act in self-interest. It's only when a boycott is called, and consumers collectivize to work for the benefit of the group does wallet voting work.
>And I'm trying to say that we should not let fear of bad elements rule our judgement. People ought to be free to do what they want if it doesn't hurt anyone
Opportunity cost is debatably causing damage
>And it's true. Companies will use trustbusting to harm competitors. Who do you think flags "trusts" anyway? The people who most want to see them fall.
And trusts are saintly entities. Competitors want to compete, and have the liberty to be able to compete. That's the basis for liberalism and a market economy.
>And vertical and horizontal integration were great. All those people had great jobs, and the consumers got their oil at lower and lower prices. So the only people who lost out were his competitors. Why should we reward inefficiency by hamstringing those who do better? It has a real cost to the people who will pay the increased price, and will disproportionately harm the poor or small businesses.
You know, and everyone else knows, Standard Oil was the exception, and there is absolutely no evidence that Standard Oil provided more benefit to society than the child companies formed by the break up. Standard Oil effectively held control on the means that made them efficient, to the point where other companies could not be efficient whether or not they wanted to innovate.
If you want to say Standard Oil was good anyways, and reject all of this, that's still basically saying centrally controlled economies of certain industries works better than competing in the market with the same tools available to your competitors
>>620739
>Russia, Cuba, etc.
"Be careful with Cuba" and slight income differences are very weak arguments. There's absolutely no factual basis for the argument that there wouldn't be professionals without income inequality.
>the proportion of the world living on a dollar per day has actually fallen even as the population has increased in the past two decades it has almost halved.
Yes, living standards also improved greatly under stalinism or slavist america. Poor argument.
>From what I've heard, he's (...)
Irrelevant / not an argument against what i said.
>And if the rich are concentrating the wealth, then the wealthy are not growing in numbers, and the normal population is.
I don't know what your logic is but that certainly doesn't follow mathematically.
>The normal population spends (...)
We're going in circles. We both agreed that the market is weighted by wealth. The discussion started with you saying that "the market is already democratic". Do you stand by that statement, using the conventional definition of democracy?
>And they don't control society, society controls them to a great extent.
They do. They objectively do, as statistical studies comparing policymaking with economic elites and general population opinions show.
>Capitalism isn't democratic, but because it's not a government and force is not involved in market exchange (for the most part), it's not a bad system. Democracy is good for government because government has, as libertarians point out, a monopoly on force.
Government can't be democratic in an economically unequal society. Economic power translates into political power. Which is why there can't be liberty without equality.
>force is not involved in market
It is in the most important market, labour.
>>620779
Wasn't that guy, I just enjoy correcting misuses of the tragedy of the commons. The actual tragedy of the commons happened because British peasants LACKED collective bargaining power.
>>620785
If people can be convinced that damaging a company in some way would serve their interests better than simply accepting the status quo, then yes, they can totally band together. Or they can vote with their feet and buy from a competitor.
And competitors are free to compete, but only if they can actually compete. If the public must subsidize their competition or step in to grant them favors, then has society truly gained anything? You are proposing that competitors should be free *from* failure as opposed to free *to* compete.
And Standard Oil would likely have broken up soon enough anyway, as soon as its competitors adopted its innovations. The reason is that just as economies of scale are real, so too are diseconomies of scale.
The larger an organization grows, the more it must change to accommodate its new size. Many opt for increased bureaucracy, which reduces innovations and perpetuates a rigid and unchanging system. Others try to localize things more, but then you run into the problem of the head not knowing what the hands are doing and communication problems all around. Its massive size would actually become a disadvantage.
>>620802
Seems to me that it happened because government didn't enforce the commons. Don't know too much about it tbqh.
>>620802
Yes, I know it's not strictly "commons" but it's simpler than typing "a situation where individuals acting independently and rationally according to their own self-interest behave contrary to the best interests of the whole" minus the bit about the commons.
And an ideologue would probably deny this phenomenon anyways.
>>620810
>If people can be convinced that damaging a company in some way would serve their interests better than simply accepting the status quo, then yes, they can totally band together. Or they can vote with their feet and buy from a competitor.
If. If a bunch of shepherds got together and decided, guys, stop fucking grazing all the grass and leave some for everyone...
>And competitors are free to compete, but only if they can actually compete.
They must be given the means to compete.
>If the public must subsidize their competition or step in to grant them favors, then has society truly gained anything?
Yes, liberty.
>You are proposing that competitors should be free *from* failure as opposed to free *to* compete.
No I'm not. You are saying that because you are being an anti-government ideologue.
>And Standard Oil would likely have broken up soon enough anyway, as soon as its competitors adopted its innovations.
Yes, exactly. That is actually a point against you. The reason Standard Oil was able to keep it's size was that it was able to deny those innovations from it's competitors for a long time. Smaller competing entities using the same innovations would out compete Standard Oil, and therefore, breaking up Standard Oil was not an awful thing, nor was Standard Oil being a monopoly a good thing. Had other companies had the same means available, it would lead to competition.
>>620797
It's absolutely true that no communist system ever tried for long to pay its doctors or government employees at the same rate as ordinary laborers. There would still be professionals, yes, but much, much less of them. If you can get the same wage working at Starbucks as you would being a doctor, fuck that 10-12 years of training bullshit.
>rich people concentrating wealth
>fewer people becoming rich
>far more normal people coming into existence
>normal people continue to be dominant through sheer numbers and frequency of trade
And yes, the market is democratic to an extent, just like our government in the US is democratic to an extent.
>statistical studies comparing policymaking
So why not take the rich peoples' toys in government away from them and limit what government can do for them? It's not the rich people's fault that their competitors can use the government against them at the moment, so why shouldn't they get in on the game?
Government can absolutely be democratic in an economically unequal society, because a rich person's vote counts just as much as a poor person's. It's not because of the rich that voter turnout is so low, however. We are just largely apathetic to politics, but the founding fathers knew we needed to be informed citizens if we were to keep our republic. They were right.
Equality - and by this you mean what could be termed more correctly "equity" - can only exist without liberty. You need to force people into equality, which is fundamentally anti-democratic.
>labor is forced
We're approaching wage slavery territory. No one forces you to labor to survive, nature does. Your need to eat and drink is not something anyone else did to you, so you can't make them responsible for it.
>>620840
>Government can absolutely be democratic in an economically unequal society, because a rich person's vote counts just as much as a poor person's. It's not because of the rich that voter turnout is so low, however. We are just largely apathetic to politics, but the founding fathers knew we needed to be informed citizens if we were to keep our republic. They were right.
A rich person can influence the flow of information, and due to the cost barrier of running for office, easily fund candidates' campaigns, which is a significant reason why lobbyists has so much influence. Many politicians feel in order to be a viable candidate and run a campaign, or prevent someone from running against them due to a differential in funding, they have to be in cahoots with reliable rich donors.
>So why not take the rich peoples' toys in government away from them and limit what government can do for them? It's not the rich people's fault that their competitors can use the government against them at the moment, so why shouldn't they get in on the game?
You are implying that if you take away their most useful you, they wouldn't move on to their second most useful toy. The obvious answer is to take democratic control of their most useful toy, and use it against them to keep their second most useful toy in check.
>>620829
>If
Yeah, government can punish criminal organizations... if. If's are tricky things.
>they must be given the means to compete
This is futile. You're saying we must subsidize failure. There is a real societal cost for this, and the poor will bear the brunt of it, not you.
>gaining liberty by negating others' liberty
That's not how liberty works.
And I'm not an anti-government ideologue. I'm not an anarchist. I like government (especially republican democracy best democracy), but I would like it to be smaller because I don't think it's a catch-all for all of our problems.
Standard Oil did not deny its competitors innovations - where does it say, anywhere, that you must give your trade secrets away to your competitors just to be fair? What's the point of seeking innovations then, if you can just wait for some other guy to make one and then copy them without ever spending a dime? Those companies should have sought to create their own solutions, not have government break apart Standard Oil because they were too incompetent to compete with it.
You need to think about the consequences, especially the possible unintended ones, of your hopes for society. There are always unexpected trade-offs that are never matched by the intentions of what people propose. The key is to be cognizant of that and make a decision as to which produces the better net outcome.
>>620860
>most useful you
most useful toy
>>620840
>It's absolutely true that no communist system ever tried for long to pay its doctors or government employees at the same rate as ordinary laborers.
Again, absolutely no factual basis. Income differences are absolutely irrelevant in those examples. Maybe you'd rather work in starbucks, i certainly wouldn't.
>And yes, the market is democratic to an extent, just like our government in the US is democratic to an extent.
>Government can absolutely be democratic in an economically unequal society, because a rich person's vote counts just as much as a poor person's.
False.
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
>We are just largely apathetic to politics, but the founding fathers knew we needed to be informed citizens if we were to keep our republic. They were right.
Of course citizens are apathetic. Why would you care if there is zero correlation between what the people want and actual policymaking?
>So why not take the rich peoples' toys in government away from them and limit what government can do for them?
Having a coopted government or letting the free market at work is basically the same.
>We're approaching wage slavery territory. No one forces you to labor to survive, nature does. Your need to eat and drink is not something anyone else did to you, so you can't make them responsible for it.
The work of a single person using modern technology can feed thousands of people. Wage slavery certainly does not derive from nature's oppression.
>>620810
>Seems to me … Don't know too much about it tbqh.
Maybe you should try reading the source I fucking cited before holding your "seeming" over a scholarly work?
>>620864
>Yeah, government can punish criminal organizations... if. If's are tricky things.
Or you could just not have government, and not have government punish criminal organizations, which is a popular sentiment in Anarchist movements with particularly corrupt governments.
>This is futile. You're saying we must subsidize failure. There is a real societal cost for this, and the poor will bear the brunt of it, not you.
You are putting words in my mouth, probably while doing some mental gymnastics in your head about how this makes sense.
>That's not how liberty works.
Exactly, monopolies should not negate your liberty to compete.
>Standard Oil did not deny its competitors innovations - where does it say, anywhere, that you must give your trade secrets away to your competitors just to be fair? What's the point of seeking innovations then, if you can just wait for some other guy to make one and then copy them without ever spending a dime?
That's a nice narrative, but it's not true. Patent and copyright laws give specific benefits with specific time frames. Owning and integrating due to your large size when others can't, and depriving them of those means is anti-competitive.
>Those companies should have sought to create their own solutions, not have government break apart Standard Oil because they were too incompetent to compete with it.
And this is where the ideologue part kicks in, you can't decide if Standard Oil was going to seen be out competed, or if it was only because of the break-up. you just pick which one is more convenient.
>You need to think about the consequences, especially the possible unintended ones, of your hopes for society. There are always unexpected trade-offs that are never matched by the intentions of what people propose. The key is to be cognizant of that and make a decision as to which produces the better net outcome.
The ironing.
>>620860
>a rich person can influence the flow of information
We live in an age of social media and blogs, we're better off than ever when it comes to sources of news. And actually, donors will usually select candidates who espouse things they like, rather than have candidates suck up to them for money. If the person does not have actual convictions that you believe in too, it could be that they saddled up next to you for the money, which makes them unreliable once they get into office.
Campaign money and lobbying is no match for actual voters though. Check out Jeb Bush's $100 million media blitz versus Donald Trump's $225,000 one. Don't get me wrong, I hate Trump, but an attentive public cannot be outdone by money.
How would you take democratic control away from the rich, when they actually don't bear any more control over the democratic process than the average Joe? Sure they can pay for campaigns, lobbying, etc, etc, but at the end of the day they're always outgunned. They just need to hope that no one else is watching what they're doing, something that is easier in a bureaucratic and bloated system.
Tbqh it pisses me off how uninterested most Americans are in politics.
>>620879
Calm your tits breh, I said I was ignorant.
>>620890
>Calm your tits breh, I said I was ignorant.
Not only about enclosure, but about methodology too. Why should we attend to anything you say when you deliberately express yourself in ignorance?
>>620878
You're not most people. I can assure you, a lot of people will take the easy path.
>the Gilens and Page meme paper
It honestly needs more research. This was big news for all of about two weeks, but it's hardly anything substantial.
>Having a coopted government or letting the free market at work is basically the same.
I don't think so, but at least one isn't a bureaucratic headache to change and the other is entirely dependent on the public's willing patronage.
>wage slavery
This meme needs to die.
You are saying that that one person has the duty to feed a thousand people simply because he can? Does he have a choice? You are stripping his liberty away from him in order to selfishly increase your own wealth. This idea of "wage slavery" is base and evil greed at its core.
>>620897
>admit I'm ignorant on one thing that was actually a digression from the main discussion
>I'm ignorant about everything now
I mean, if you want to, go on ahead. It's just a dumb reason.
>>620890
>We live in an age of social media and blogs, we're better off than ever when it comes to sources of news.
Yes, and people still end up watching Fox, CNN and ads paid for by super PACs.
>And actually, donors will usually select candidates who espouse things they like, rather than have candidates suck up to them for money.
That's a nice fantasy. I'm not saying a candidate will always do a 180 for money, but it's been known to happen.
> If the person does not have actual convictions that you believe in too, it could be that they saddled up next to you for the money, which makes them unreliable once they get into office.
No, you mostly just want them to rely on you for money. This lowers the bar to being the lesser of available evils the candidate seeks for funding.
>Don't get me wrong, I hate Trump, but an attentive public cannot be outdone by money.
Trump knows how to play the media. He's a media insider. He's not playing his personal money, or donor money. He's playing
advertiser's money by knowing how to get ratings, and damage ratings. It's not traditional though, but I never said money was the end-all be-all. It's also well known money plays a much more significant role in smaller local elections.
>How would you take democratic control away from the rich, when they actually don't bear any more control over the democratic process than the average Joe? Sure they can pay for campaigns, lobbying, etc, etc, but at the end of the day they're always outgunned.
False.
>They just need to hope that no one else is watching what they're doing, something that is easier in a bureaucratic and bloated system.
And with things that let them funnel money anonymously, like super PACs.
>Tbqh it pisses me off how uninterested most Americans are in politics.
It pisses me off how people most interested in politics are ideologues who have been told a narrative they want to believe.
>>620888
I'm not an anarchist.
And I'm trying to show you the unintended consequences of you saying "we must ensure competition." You would ensure competition, even if it was a loss to society, because your win condition for "liberty" would be competition existing, even if it only existed at the expense of the greater public.
>Exactly, monopolies should not negate your liberty to compete.
If you can't compete then why should people subsidize you? Really?
You need to realize that if you did not reward innovation, it would not be produced as much. So your idea to punish innovators by making them give their hard-earned research away to others is a bad idea. You honestly have not thought this through from the perspective of a business, only from your own perspective as someone who will never have to pay the price for this massive change.
>And this is where the ideologue part kicks in, you can't decide if Standard Oil was going to seen be out competed, or if it was only because of the break-up. you just pick which one is more convenient.
It was going to do either/or. That's what I was saying. When you hit a big enough size, you need to localize (could fragment) or bureaucratize (could stagnate).
>The ironing
I'm just letting you know, you want to change A to affect B, but don't see how everything is so interconnected these days that you would end up affecting C-Z in some way too.
>>620914
>You're not most people. I can assure you, a lot of people will take the easy path.
A lot of people will and a lot of people won't, as real life shows.
>It honestly needs more research. This was big news for all of about two weeks, but it's hardly anything substantial.
This is not an argument.
>This meme needs to die.
This is even less of an argument.
>You are saying that that one person has the duty to feed a thousand people simply because he can? Does he have a choice? (...)
What? No. I'm saying that if a person has to work himself to death to barely survive it isn't because of nature, which we have dominated to a point in which a minimal part of society's productive power is necessary for our survival, but rather because of our exploitative organization of society.
>>620919
>Yes, and people still end up watching Fox, CNN and ads paid for by super PACs.
So people are stupid, and will believe everything on TV? Why have a democracy then, if people are stupid and can't decide their leaders for themselves?
>that's a nice fantasy
Try looking it up man. I lost my original articles in a harddrive crash, but I just Googled "do campaign donations affect campaign policy" and most of the academic literature looks to be "yes and no."
>rely on you for money
You know they're paid a salary, right? They shouldn't be taking bribes like that, I think we can both agree.
>False.
Double false?
>like super PACs
Don't like them much, but can't you see who donates to them?
>It pisses me off how people most interested in politics are ideologues who have been told a narrative they want to believe.
I'm not an ideologue. If I were, I'd be some an-cap weirdo trying to set up toll roads in Alaska atm.
>>620929
>I'm not an anarchist.
I didn't call you one.
>And I'm trying to show you the unintended consequences of you saying "we must ensure competition." You would ensure competition, even if it was a loss to society, because your win condition for "liberty" would be competition existing, even if it only existed at the expense of the greater public.
You're assuming a lot of things, like non-competition would benefit the greater public. But yes, I think liberty is important. If you would pick a Stasi surveillance state if it's more efficient, that's your choice. It's certainly not mine.
>If you can't compete then why should people subsidize you? Really?
You keep saying that word, subsidize. I don't think you know what it means, because I haven't been saying that.
>You need to realize that if you did not reward innovation, it would not be produced as much. So your idea to punish innovators by making them give their hard-earned research away to others is a bad idea. You honestly have not thought this through from the perspective of a business, only from your own perspective as someone who will never have to pay the price for this massive change.
You are once again putting words in my mouth, and this becomes immediately obvious when you chose to selectively quote things while ignoring parts of the post that directly address your strawman.
>It was going to do either/or. That's what I was saying. When you hit a big enough size, you need to localize (could fragment) or bureaucratize (could stagnate).
And you pick either/or based on what suits your argument at the time.
>I'm just letting you know, you want to change A to affect B, but don't see how everything is so interconnected these days that you would end up affecting C-Z in some way too.
Again, the ironing.
>>620934
>as real life shows
Uh huh, right. All I'm saying is, if you subsidize something, you get more of it. Subsidize doctors, you might get more.
>this is not an argument
Correct.
>This is even less of an argument
Because wage slavery is such a non-argument as to be on the same level as dickbutt and doge.
>which we have dominated to a point in which a minimal part of society's productive power is necessary for our survival
Why do other people owe you your survival just because they *could* give it to you? Doesn't that impose on them something that you refuse to take responsibility for yourself, your own wellbeing? How is that not a different kind of exploitation? How is it not selfish to make others feed you so you're free to do as you please, while they are stuck providing for you?
>>620951
>So people are stupid, and will believe everything on TV?
Lots of them, enough to make up a significant voter bloc.
>Why have a democracy then, if people are stupid and can't decide their leaders for themselves?
Ideally you would want people to not be stupid, but it at least puts some accountability to normal people.
>Try looking it up man. I lost my original articles in a harddrive crash, but I just Googled "do campaign donations affect campaign policy" and most of the academic literature looks to be "yes and no."
>"yes and no."
>but my argument is just no and only no
It doesn't matter anyways. Hypothetically (emphasis on hypothetical for this simplified explanation), let's say the only way to get money to run a campaign was to be pro-big-pharma. No one who is anti-big-pharma can get money to run a campaign in this hypothetical example. The only people who are viable candidates are pro-big-pharma. That's campaign money at work without changing the ideas of the candidate.
>You know they're paid a salary, right? They shouldn't be taking bribes like that, I think we can both agree.
Have you ever compared the cost of running a campaign compared to the salary? If so, you'd realize how stupid this is.
>Double false?
Triple false, because I say so.
>Don't like them much, but can't you see who donates to them?
You claim to be interested in politics, but you're clearly an idiot, in the Greek sense of the word.
>I'm not an ideologue. If I were, I'd be some an-cap weirdo trying to set up toll roads in Alaska atm.
So your idea of an ideologue is only, and only an extremist?
>>620952
I didn't say non-competition would benefit the public, I said subsidizing failing companies would cause harm to the public. Whether you subsidize them with money taken from taxes, or forcing the market lead to hand over trade secrets (saving them money on research), you are still subsidizing failure.
And it is not a strawman to suggest that forcing someone who has worked hard and spent a lot of money to research a new innovation being forced to hand over that innovation to their competition is pretty much a punishment for trying because their competitor has gained far more without any work.
>And you pick either/or based on what suits your argument at the time.
You do realize that these things are not set in stone, right? I'm not some market soothsayer. I'm saying two outcomes are commonly seen, so you'd probably see one or the other. It would depend.
>Again, the ironing.
I'm trying to take into account the negatives that could occur when I present my solutions. I say "it is better than X outcome," not that it's absolutely better. You just present things as if they would produce an absolute best outcome, and you brush off any concerns about negative consequences or unintended side effects.
>>620966
>Why do other people owe you your survival just because they *could* give it to you? Doesn't that impose on them something that you refuse to take responsibility for yourself, your own wellbeing? How is that not a different kind of exploitation? How is it not selfish to make others feed you so you're free to do as you please, while they are stuck providing for you?
Stop being retarded, anon. I'm responding to your argument about how nature is the source of wage slavery, not proposing a distribution system for society. If an asian in a sweatshop has to work 12 hours to buy a rice dish it isn't because the natural conditions determined so.
>>620994
>I didn't say non-competition would benefit the public, I said subsidizing failing companies would cause harm to the public. Whether you subsidize them with money taken from taxes, or forcing the market lead to hand over trade secrets (saving them money on research), you are still subsidizing failure.
You are putting words in my mouth.
>And it is not a strawman to suggest that forcing someone who has worked hard and spent a lot of money to research a new innovation being forced to hand over that innovation to their competition is pretty much a punishment for trying because their competitor has gained far more without any work.
Actually it is a strawman. Maybe you need to look up what a strawman is.
>You do realize that these things are not set in stone, right? I'm not some market soothsayer. I'm saying two outcomes are commonly seen, so you'd probably see one or the other. It would depend.
Except it's one way when it's convenient and the other way when it's convenient.
>I'm trying to take into account the negatives that could occur when I present my solutions. I say "it is better than X outcome," not that it's absolutely better.
I'm not sure if you're serious and you being an ideologue is just blinding you.
>You just present things as if they would produce an absolute best outcome
Where did I say anything would produce the best outcome? You're the one advocating a best outcome. I'm just taking the easy path and poking holes in it. I don't claim to know what's best.
>you brush off any concerns about negative consequences or unintended side effects.
That's literally you and your blind belief about shrinking government.
>>620970
>Lots of them, enough to make up a significant voter bloc.
So we ought to do away with democracy, if that's the case.
Be careful, if big pharma is a hot issue topic in that campaign then it would deadly to accept donations from them then. Bernie Sanders routinely hits out at Hillary for accepting corporate donations, while largely being funded by unions, and his campaign has exceeded all expectations.
And I thought you meant lobbying in that regard, wasn't thinking about campaign expenditure because they're technically not supposed to keep that for themselves.
>Triple False
Quadrafalse?
>you're clearly an idiot
Thanks senpai, but 38 states require disclosure (should be 50, but ayy).
>So your idea of an ideologue is only, and only an extremist?
No, I'm just not about to change my mind on issues I've read and studied a lot from a single chat on a Nepalese woodworking bulletin. I'm sure you understand. I would have sourced a lot of my shit, but like I said, my harddrive crashed awhile ago and I'm too lazy tonight to re-source everything.
>>621007
He's clearly an ideologue, with an us-vs-them mentality, which is why he resorts to strawmanning so much, since he has a very clearly defined idea of what a 'them' believes, and he actually believes what he says.
>>621016
>So we ought to do away with democracy, if that's the case.
That's some slippery slope you have there. I also need to emphasis the ironing, again, about unintended consequences.
>Be careful, if big pharma
Hypo-fucking-thetical, you nitwit. Substitute whatever example you want. You have to form a coalition of donors, big or small, to raise enough money to run a campaign to meet the cutoff of being viable.
>And I thought you meant lobbying in that regard, wasn't thinking about campaign expenditure because they're technically not supposed to keep that for themselves.
Lobbying is tied to campaign funding and you're an (Greek) idiot if you don't know this.
>Thanks senpai, but 38 states require disclosure (should be 50, but ayy).
>what is 501(c)
>what is timeline
>50 - 38 = places to fund a super pac without disclosing
>No, I'm just not about to change my mind on issues I've read and studied a lot from a single chat on a Nepalese woodworking bulletin. I'm sure you understand. I would have sourced a lot of my shit, but like I said, my harddrive crashed awhile ago and I'm too lazy tonight to re-source everything.
Sure you are. Sources, uh huh.
>>621007
That's not true anywhere. If it was, they would go back to subsistence farming; it's got a better payoff.
So tell me, does your need to be fed impose a direct obligation on another person? That is how you end wage slavery, if other people must provide for you.
>>621015
>You are putting words in my mouth
I'm saying what you propose will not lead to the outcome you want. It is not a strawman, it is a criticism that I'm trying to work you through. I'm not misrepresenting your position, I'm trying to show you where I think your outcome will lie.
>Except it's one way when it's convenient and the other way when it's convenient.
You're an idiot. I explained this to you, there is more than one way for a company to fail, I just gave the most common scenarios. You're pretty determine to demonize me, so you've latched onto this as if I was trying to tell the future rather than give scenarios.
>you're an ideologue because I said so
I've read a lot of rebuttals to the sorts of arguments being presented here before. I'm not going to change what is, to my limited knowledge, my informed reasoning simply because you're calling me a close-minded ideologue.
>I'm just taking the easy path and poking holes in it.
That's asinine.
>That's literally you and your blind belief about shrinking government.
I at least present my reasoning. You're not showing much of your work, you just repeat the same erroneous ideas over and over, which is why I have to repeat the same thing over and over because you're not saying anything new.
You claim I'm an ideologue but you are much more rigid in your thinking. I at least admitted earlier when I did not know something, or when I had to look something up, like with the tragedy of the commons or the SuperPAC disclosures. You just keep going over and over the same thing, refusing to re-examine it. So here we are.
>>618346
Right wing economically because of proper education.
And socially I'm for liberalism - because I am orthodox Christian, but because world is formed of gentiles mostly we need an authoritarian system to keep things balanced.
>>621050
>I'm saying what you propose will not lead to the outcome you want. It is not a strawman, it is a criticism that I'm trying to work you through. I'm not misrepresenting your position, I'm trying to show you where I think your outcome will lie.
Show me where I said subsidize, or reveal secrets. There was the historical example of Standard Oil, and while I don't know what would have happened if it wasn't broken up, there's certainly been a long to to observe unintended side effects.
>You're an idiot. I explained this to you
And that doesn't change how you use the example at your own convenience. It's one way when it supports one argument, it's the other when it supports a different one.
>I've read a lot of rebuttals to the sorts of arguments being presented here before. I'm not going to change what is, to my limited knowledge, my informed reasoning simply because you're calling me a close-minded ideologue.
And then you strawman, because you're an idealogue.
>That's asinine.
That doesn't change the fact that you strawman and are wrong.
>I at least present my reasoning. You're not showing much of your work, you just repeat the same erroneous ideas over and over, which is why I have to repeat the same thing over and over because you're not saying anything new.
Let me say it again, ironing.
>You claim I'm an ideologue but you are much more rigid in your thinking.
Because your arguments are ignorance, denial, and strawmanning. You avoid responding to refutations of your arguments, or directly refuting them, instead resorting to refuting strawmen or ignoring them.
>You just keep going over and over the same thing, refusing to re-examine it.
The, fucking, ironing. It would help if you stopped trying to tell me to re-examine your strawmen that I didn't say, and tried to at least be a little introspective.
>>621050
>That's not true anywhere. If it was, they would go back to subsistence farming; it's got a better payoff.
My little libertarian is so naive that he forgets that private property exists. In his fantasy world, sweatshop workers chose to slave themselves rather than doing any of the vast amount of occupations at their disposal. He has a land, a nice tractor, and capital for the needed inputs waiting for him, but he knows better.
>>621032
A consequence of you thinking most people are too stupid to decide their leaders for themselves could be to educate them, or get them involved... or to just do away with it altogether. You don't seem too keen on the first.
>my hypothetical trumps yours so there
This is going nowhere fast.
Lobbying, as it's used most commonly, is the day-to-day courting of those already in government.
And hey, I made it clear I didn't know much about SuperPACs. I just don't think they've got as much influence as you think they do.
Here's a source you can snag from your local library, Economic Facts & Fallacies by Thomas Sowell. The condensed Wealth of Nations is another good one I can recommend if you don't want to tackle the old (massive) text, and it's got a healthy dose of mainstream economic critique of Adam Smith: http://www.adamsmith.org/sites/default/files/resources/condensed-WoN.pdf
Like I said, lazy.
>>621072
>Sowell
Should have listened to the anon calling you an ideologue.
>>621070
I literally just explained what I meant by saying subsidize.
>And that doesn't change how you use the example at your own convenience.
You've got a real hard on for this. I'm going to say it again: I gave you two possible outcomes that were most likely if things had continued. What would have happened? Fuck if I know.
You know when the weather man tells you it might rain or just be cloudy tomorrow? Do you get just as mad as him for having different end scenarios based on different conditions?
>STRAWMAN STRAWMAN STRAWMAN STRAWMAN STRAWMAN STRAWMAN STRAWMAN
I don't think you know what this means. I explained that I was not trying to misrepresent your intentions, only trying to show you what the outcome could be.
>ironing
You're really not showing your work at all. Calling "strawman" and then running in circles is not doing you any favors.
>Because your arguments are ignorance, denial, and strawmanning
>they must be given the means to compete
>they must be given the means to compete
>they must be given the means to compete
>they must be given the means to compete
>they must be given the means to compete
(me):
>And I'm trying to show you the unintended consequences of you saying "we must ensure competition." You would ensure competition, even if it was a loss to society, because your win condition for "liberty" would be competition existing, even if it only existed at the expense of the greater public.
>I said subsidizing failing companies would cause harm to the public. Whether you subsidize them with money taken from taxes, or forcing the market lead to hand over trade secrets (saving them money on research), you are still subsidizing failure.
>And it is not a strawman to suggest that forcing someone who has worked hard and spent a lot of money to research a new innovation being forced to hand over that innovation to their competition is pretty much a punishment for trying because their competitor has gained far more without any work.
>>621072
>A consequence of you thinking most people
Words in my fucking mouth. Fucking quote me where I say most. Quote me mother fucker.
>my hypothetical trumps yours so there
You seem confused how money can influence politics without changing a candidate's votes.
>Lobbying, as it's used most commonly, is the day-to-day courting of those already in government.
You do realize elected posts aren't for life, don't you? Are you really this stupid?
>And hey, I made it clear I didn't know much about SuperPACs. I just don't think they've got as much influence as you think they do.
And where have I expressed in any specifics how much I think Super PACs may or may not affect elections at the national or local levels?
>Here's a source you can snag from your local library, Economic Facts & Fallacies by Thomas Sowell. The condensed Wealth of Nations is another good one I can recommend if you don't want to tackle the old (massive) text, and it's got a healthy dose of mainstream economic critique of Adam Smith: http://www.adamsmith.org/sites/default/files/resources/condensed-WoN.pdf
Are you /pol/? So you think just tacking a link to a source at the end of your post makes every line of bullshit you say 100% factual, even the shit that is not mentioned at all in the source?
> The condensed Wealth of Nations
>reading an abridged version edited and annotated and reinterpreted
I'm happy with the copy I have that was written by the Smith man himself.
>>621086
>I literally just explained what I meant by saying subsidize.
And show me where I said that.
>THATS NOT A STRAWMAN THOUGH
>I gave you two possible outcomes that were most likely if things had continued.
And used the outcome that was convenient to your current argument, without taking into consideration the other outcome.
>I don't think you know what this means. I explained that I was not trying to misrepresent your intentions, only trying to show you what the outcome could be.
Thanks for the laugh
>You're really not showing your work at all. Calling "strawman" and then running in circles is not doing you any favors.
I R O N I N G
R
O
N
I
N
G
>they must be given the means to compete
And you somehow got protected from failure from that, and with a very liberal interpretation subsidization, that is really not at all implied from the context.
I really don't think you know what strawman means, at all.
>>621071
You sure got me.
>>621084
What's wrong with Sowell? He's well-researched, commonly engages with critics, and has been all over the ideological spectrum during his lifetime.
>>621091
I didn't say you said that. I said that if that's what you believe, then that's what we should do.
>And where have I expressed in any specifics how much I think Super PACs may or may not affect elections at the national or local levels?
Weren't you the anon who said that high levels of money give people undue influence over elections? That was kind of a big hint.
>Are you /pol/? So you think just tacking a link to a source at the end of your post makes every line of bullshit you say 100% factual, even the shit that is not mentioned at all in the source?
No, I'm just telling you what I can remember off the top of my head. I've lost all of my digital sources and I'm a poorfag who gets what he can from the library. Pls no bully.
>I'm happy with the copy I have that was written by the Smith man himself.
Aight.
>>621108
>I didn't say you said that.
You didn't say what?
>Weren't you the anon who said that high levels of money give people undue influence over elections? That was kind of a big hint.
>hint
Nice /pol/ tinfoil hat there. You probably thinkg I'm a homosexual SJW Marxist Jew too, because I hinted I'm *that* kind of person.
>No, I'm just telling you what I can remember off the top of my head. I've lost all of my digital sources and I'm a poorfag who gets what he can from the library. Pls no bully.
That's not how you use a source. Didn't they teach you how citation works in elementary school? I'm not talking about MLA Chicago whatever style guide. I'm talking about the part where they explained to you why and how to use sources.
>>621108
>You sure got me.
>i don't have a response but i must reply with something that doesn't make it obvious
Since every subpart of the discussion ended in this, i'll assume you aren't able to sustain your position. Goodnight my libertarian anon, hope you leave your ideological bias behind some day.
>>621106
You sure go out of your way to be upset.
>And used the outcome that was convenient to your current argument, without taking into consideration the other outcome.
So let's see. I said:
Get too big, it's likely you
1. Bureaucratize (stagnate)
2. Localize (fragment)
The outcome would depend on the path taken, which is also dependent on how they would subjectively decide which is better for them. Same as the weatherman predicting tomorrow's forecast: it fucking depends on what happens first.
And subsidies are a protection from failure. Sugar in the US is subsidized because it can't compete with Caribbean sugar at market prices. We are subsidizing an industry that ought to be a failure. Get it?
I tried to explain that I think anything that you do to offer undue aid to something could be viewed as a subsidy, but rather than accept that and move on to productive discussion you're still whining that there was a trip up in the first place.
And yes, if some company fails to compete, and you alter the rules or give them a leg up somehow to protect them from that failure to compete, then that is indeed protecting them from failure to compete. Try to actually work with the argument, rather than whine that you don't like the formatting.
And do please contain your autism anon. In real debates actually naming the fallacy is a no-no, you're just supposed to use the knowledge of the fallacy to attack the sham argument. Stating the fallacy gets you nothing.
>>621133
Learn to use direct quotes instead of paraphrasing what you think people are saying, and maybe you'll learn to strawman less. But good job presenting non-arguments and convincing yourself you're still right.
>>621125
>Nice /pol/ tinfoil hat there.
>A rich person can influence the flow of information, and due to the cost barrier of running for office, easily fund candidates' campaigns, which is a significant reason why lobbyists has so much influence. Many politicians feel in order to be a viable candidate and run a campaign, or prevent someone from running against them due to a differential in funding, they have to be in cahoots with reliable rich donors.
We literally got to this point because you began by saying the rich had undue influence.
And I told you I knew that's not how you cite, but my poorass can't afford an external harddrive or the books.
>>621130
Thanks senpai, but I'm not a libertarian. May you not slave for wages some day either.
>>621145
>But good job presenting non-arguments and convincing yourself you're still right.
Thanks, I hope to be as good as you some day. Means a lot to me.
Anyway it's late. Little wage slaves must lie down to rest, this one included.
>>621151
>We literally got to this point because you began by saying the rich had undue influence.
And you went full strawman because that was enough of a hint to reveal my secret identity as a homosexual SJW Marxist Jew, so you immediately know my opinion, and didn't even have to ask why my opinion was, you already knew it well.
>>618346
>How can this be, considering that this board has so many socialists?
What is your basis for this claim, and how do you define socialism, considering the vastly differing definitions people seem to have?
>>621162
What's your opinion? New guy to the convo here and it's been very interesting. It's just got bogged down at the end.
>>621311
More socialists than /pol/ means board is infested with SJW Marxist Jews REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>>618426
>people who don't know how economics work?
Do you know how the french revolution came to place? It weren't the farmers which fucked up the economy. I mean, you must be really retarded if you think an elite would act any more responsible for the well-being of an economy, especially if they're not the ones suffering for their mistakes on a physical level.
>>618382
Socialism isn't a planned economy, that's communism. Socialism is just redistribution of wealth via welfare programs.
The majority of people do not understand liberty, and they never will.
>>621565
You are thinking reformism, he his thinking of revolutionary socialism.
>>618346
Liberty does not mean freedom.
Liberty is a concept that describes the ability of people to freely own and trade private property.
Liberty is about ownership and capitalism. As it is about private property, which is defined as differing from personal property in that it has no real use value. Unlike say the house you live in or your car, which is personal property.
Private property being land and assets that are only used for the accumulation of capital.
What most people think of as Liberty is actually just Freedom, and you cannot have real Freedom without Equality.
As freedom precludes the idea to do whatever you want without restrictions placed upon you, and that is simply impossible in a world full of inequality.
The poor are not Free because they are not equal. Native tribes are not free because they are not equal.
Equality is more important, as equality is the road to real freedom.
The cliche statement is that the biggest type of inequality is trying to make to unequal things equal. I hold this belief.
>>620462
I'm the anon who posted the original debate-sparkling post. I don't think CEOs are evil or anything. I don't hate the rich at all. I'm still advocating capitalism, with a certain set of checks and balances. And my post included that taxation should depend on their reinvestment/consumption ratio. If you earn a billion dollars a year, invest 990 million into an innovative business that creates jobs/development, etc. then great, you benefit mankind in many ways. If you want to spend all of it on frivolous luxury, what's the point? Why would everyone applaud someone buying 5 more luxury yacths or apartments (that they wont rent to others, so it will be just rotting there) that they will never really use? It's the government and the people that had agreed on the system that made you be able to be rich, they have the right to tax you. It's not the lazy plebs stealing your hard earned dollars. What I'm saying is that too much of mankind's resources is being spent on the lifestyles of a very narrow layer, while those lifestyles would pretty much be the same in quality and enjoyment with less than 10% of the same resources being spent on them, and those rather pointlessly spent resources could induce unpreceeded development in many areas of the world. Hell, even in the USA is in need of a massive depovertisation (?) process. And it's not just about feelings or whatever. Major inequality turns into poverty, which then creates instability that becomes unsustainable at a point. In the very long run, even the rich would be better off with taxation.
What I think is plausible for example is the progressive taxation of luxury items. You want to have a huge yacht? Fine, you worked hard for it. Buy one. You need a second one? What the fuck for? Pay an extra 50% tax, then. Third? Double price etc.
>>622317
Cont.
Also, my post started with "a perfect political system". What I'm saying stands as long as we assume that the government is not just another branch of corrupt super rich people and will use tax money to benefit the people to the best of their ability.
>>622343
>What I'm saying stands as long as we assume that the government is not just another branch of corrupt super rich people and will use tax money to benefit the people to the best of their ability.
I too would like to live in this utopia, but unfortunately, this is reality.
>>622396
There are governments that are alright. Surely not perfect, but Norhwestern Europe is quite okay in this regard.
>>618426
>you mean what a bunch of ignorant workers? people who don't know how economics work?
Nobody knew knew how economics work until like 1920's when we've started gathering data on enormous scale to the point where we were able to reach any worthwhile conclusions.
I'll compare it to the other centralised thing - electric network.
There is no single person on the earth who deals with it from the consumer(be it tiny old house with 2 lightbulbs or a high tech factory) to the high voltage distribution level. There was enormous effort to analyse the inner workings of the system so we for instance know that if you're generating less energy than it's needed you'll get slight frequency drop which is caused by the way generators work.
They've set up certain norms and it works. The guy who designs installations follows the norms so the buildings he made for example have capacitor batteries to compensate huge inductive loads like engines which is very important for reducing network's load. Then the guy who designed the line or cable network in given area(or rather - several dozens of guys) along with stations and so on use norms. And so on and so on up to the point when we're talking about solutions for controlling input-output between different countries' network so country A doesn't use country's B lines to transfer the power(or to monitor the amount of power country A sells to B if that's the case). It's not like any of those people know each other's work as well.
Entire economy works exactly like that. There are high-level guys who know economics, but then you have car mechanic who runs his own workshop, foreman in some factory(mind you not even person who directly deals with money involved) or small shop owners who make economic decision on day-to-day basis which influence countless things. Does any of them have economy degree from Ivy-league college? No.
I'm not in favour of socialism, but you are full of shit.
>>618393
Except that the capitalist economy is not planned by producers. Enterpreneurs have to follow the demands of consumers, making it the only true democratic system.
>>621565
That is social-democracy and can only exist in a capitalist economy. Socialism (government ownership of the means of production) is the halfway to communism (anarchism).
>>622859
What about manufactured demand, a la marketing?
>>622960
Doesn't matter. Everything you do in your life is based on outside influence. If you agree with an advertisement, go ahead and buy the product. Or don't. It's your choice.
>>623108
Your choices are limited by the market then, and that is a market that you can only affect with your very small wallet.
>>623136
>your choices are limited by the market
Well, they have to be limited by something. You can't have infinite choices of products anywhere.
>you can only affect with your small wallet
Same thing goes for your vote in a political campaign. If enough people vote with their wallets, the market changes. And the beauty of the free market is that, if you don't like a certain product, you can always go for the competitor.
>>623238
>Same thing goes for your vote in a political campaign.
No, it's literally not the same thing, that's the entire point, the disparity in wealth means that as long as you don't have some sort of balancing measure, there is inequality in voting power in the economic sense.
Think of the historical examples of weighted voting in favour of landed gentry as examples of this.
>>623272
Not exactly. Think of bread, for example. That is a product that low-income people have a say in.
You might not be able to influence the market of luxury cars that much, but the bread market is yours.
>>618382
They're in favour of industries being run democratically by the workers, not privately owned and run by shareholders. Not state run economy.
>How can that be free
More control in your own affairs=more freedom. As opposed to your job being at the mercy of the owner.
>>623301
under the condition that large masses of poor people organise themselves effectively to influence the bread market
then organise themselves to influnce [insert some other product] market
and so on
on the other hand, you have organised units called corporations or even organisations (i'd say they're pretty organised), that manage to economically influence the market with incredibly bigger effects
so at this point, what you're looking at is the poor organising communal purchasing power organisations, see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zadruga
this was a common thing during late 19th century and communist times in Yugoslavia.
Effectively, the poor are required to organise themselves outside of their workplace to a great extent, just to compete.
Not to mention, a typical historical Zadruga is small time compared to what kind of an economic power a moderately sized corporation can hold today.
Now, I'm coming from a moralistic and pragmatic viewpoint here and I don't see how all this extra burden on poor people is justified just so that an idealistic concept of true liberty and private property is preserved, even though it ostensibly doesn't benefit a rich man that much directly (in terms of personal wealth and so on)
also, disproportionality of direct benefit of wealth and so on and so on
>>623367
You don't have to organise anyone.
Individual citizens, by deciding what product they want to buy, are directly influencing production. If Coca-Cola changed its formula and suddenly lost 20% of the soft drink market to Pepsi, it would change back to the previous recipe. If that is not democratic production, I don't know what is.
>>623417
I've already given you two examples of situations where your "vote" matters (bread and coca-cola). If you could tell me what is wrong with them, I'd appreciate it.
>>623427
If you end up in a group not serviced by the market you will have no effect on the development of the market. Negative externalities cannot be solved by the market precisely because by nature they are beyond it. Workers being exploited to produce a product that they don't consume is a good example.
>>623403
As another anon said, it becomes something similar to a tragedy of the commons dilemma. Individuals will buy according to maximizing individual gain, rather than what could be accomplished collectively.
>>618346
Would you rather be raped and have exactly the same amount of money as your neighbor?
Or would you rather retain your anal virginity and have a wealthy neighbor?
>>623489
What if my neighbor got rich selling my anal virginity without consulting me?
>>623565
>But how does that apply to my situations?
your "situations" are idealistic examples in a vacuum.
Now, how about, instead of talking about muh version of free market hasn't been tried, we look at actual, real world examples?
The dairy market in west africa for example, is a hilarious (and frankly, sad) counterpoint.
You see, between the genetically optimised european cows and the optimisation of the production cycle, european milk is powdered, shipped to, for example, Burkina Faso and sold under the price of the local milk.
The effect was that the local cow farmers had no more means to create a profit and their poverty worsened, driving them out of business. Of course, that put aditional strain on the country apparatus itself and the well being of those farmers' families.
The market didn't straighten itself out, since there are few ways for those farmers to diversify their profits. The only ones that really benefited were german farmers, international shippers and possibly a few high ranking people who deal with import tariffs and whatnot.
So, why didn't the people "vote with their wallet" and bought local milk? Obviously, in the long run, it'd be more beneficial for them.
Well, as it turns out, people who are quite poor prefer to buy cheaper milk. Not only that, but apparently, it's quite hard to organise milions of people into an communal "economic voting force"
aka see >>623367 and >>623485
See, I told you, just loop back on that reply chain until it's clear to you. Try it.
>>620339
>billionaires have never supported socialism before
>>623634
>yfw Lenin was sent back to Russia in a sealed train car paid for by the German high command
>yfw the communist takeover of Russia was caused by the second reich
>>618346
Socialists simply focus on a different notion of liberty than Liberals do. I say this as a conservative who thinks the ultimate value on which we found our morals should not be liberty or equality but on the nexus of stability/security/safety/certainty. Every other value is a secondary expression of said foundation.
>>623615
>Obviously, in the long run, it'd be more beneficial for them.
Nah mayne. You are talking about a subsector of the economy going to shit against the whole of the country having cheaper (and probably better) milk.
>>623908
This. It was a net societal gain, even if the local milk producers lost out.
>>623914
But how does one define a 'net societal gain'?
>>623938
More people saved money for themselves, while only the local milk producers lost profits.
So more people gained than lost.
>>623953
I don't think a starving milk producer who can't feed his family would see it as a net gain
>>623908
>it's just a subsector magne
The number of people being impacted is literally in the hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions.
But fuck them, they're fucking poor africans, who cares right, it's not like they have any economic voting power... Oh wait, they actually don't hahahaha
>>624009
A few people versus the wider society? Yes. That's what I said. Sucks for them, but everyone else comes out a little better. It's incremental changes like that all over that help society at large.
>>624119
If they can't produce as cheaply as the Germans do, then why should the local people pay more just to keep them in business? Why don't they try to find another thing to sell, if it clearly is better for the other members of society to buy the other milk?
Is it not their fellow society members that are making the decision to un-employ these people as their milk can be gotten cheaper elsewhere? Isn't that economic voting power in action?
>>624134
>Of course, that put aditional strain on the country apparatus itself and the well being of those farmers' families.
>The market didn't straighten itself out, since there are few ways for those farmers to diversify their profits. The only ones that really benefited were german farmers, international shippers and possibly a few high ranking people who deal with import tariffs and whatnot.
>>624134
Exactly. Arguing otherwise is simply not doing math well enough.
Like this guy
>>624119
> literally thinking there are millions of diary producers in a country with less than 20M people
> would be literally drowning in milk
Also, this has nothing to do with them being African. A same example is happening in my country, where, due to very cheap oil, the govt. is subsidizing local producers to avoid unemployment. Otherwise, all of the fucking country would be able to buy US$30 barrels of oil but now we fucking pay to produce inefficiently, and at a higher cost.
> But my unemployment feelsies
Ethics and macroeconomics are basically the same thing. Too bad most don't understand the second.
>>624142
>The only ones that really benefited were german farmers, international shippers and possibly a few high ranking people who deal with import tariffs and whatnot.
This is just being ignorant. How can cheap milk not benefit the 16M consumers in the country?
>>624217
I think that post came out a little too brash. I apoligize for it.
>>624217
Because when a third of your economy is milk, and suddenly all those people are out of work and have no means of getting other jobs, your entire national economy goes down the drain.
>>624235
Burkina Faso: 16.8M people
Milk sector in Burkina Faso: 5.04M employed.
> The Laite River in Burkina Faso is named after the word Lait, literally milk in french, since it is the only manmade river made out of milk.
>>624252
>>624235
I'm just spitballing here, but once enough of them leave the milk industry, then prices will go back up because there's less supply.
Over a third of your country specializing in one industry sounds like a disaster waiting to happen, honestly.
>>624306
> then prices will go back up because there's less supply.
The supply is from Germany which has a surplus of milk. It still doesn't help them transfer to finding new means of economic output, but it does make all their dairy investment worthless.
>Over a third of your country specializing in one industry sounds like a disaster waiting to happen, honestly.
Just imagine if you were a feudal country where 90% of your economy was domestic agriculture.
Come back to thread after a day:
>Government should ban the importation of milk to support incredibly ineffective farmers who live in terrible conditions
>mfw
>>618346
There are many shades of socialism.
Organizing collectives (unions, communes, whatever) is a stab at increased self-governance. You can theoretically hold them more accountable than a corp. or a government and use them to advocate on your behalf against powers that would strip you of your liberties.
Inflexible demand (for medicine, housing, a wage, whatever) can be spun as a defacto bondage. Especially when employers' need for labor is not similarly inflexible. With welfare, individuals can haggle for the costs of their labor, medicine, or housing, from a position of security.
Finally, money is your power and autonomy in practice (the above point sort of illustrates one iteration of how this works). If one person has more power and autonomy, others want to be sure there's a damn good reason for it and that the degree of difference isn't something insane.
>>620123
Progressive taxes make some sense if you understand the cost of living as a regressive tax. Basically, the poorer you are the higher a percent of your income your food/rent/medical expenses must be. Moreso if you understand that the wealthy often accumulate their wealth by providing necessities, or by rendering their products necessary (as auto, computer, and sometimes finance have).
>>620308
>Also, what is the problem with Walmart? Selling cheap things to poor people doesn't seem evil to me.
It gets used as an example because a big box store can afford to move into a new area, undercut local and/or small competitors at a loss until it has no competitors, and then charge what it wants for product / pay what it wants for labor.
>People don't need loans.
Availability of credit can drive prices higher sometimes. Especially with housing, this can limit the fuck out of your options. Renting and mortgaging are both chump options next to an outright buy.
>>624306
>I'm just spitballing here, but once enough of them leave the milk industry, then prices will go back up because there's less supply.
Not particularly.Your analysis would be correct in a closed economy, that is, one that does not trade.
Given that milk is quite a homogenous commodity with substitutes we can assume that the supplies are price takers. This causes there to be a fixed price for milk. Now as the world price is below the domestic price, the only domestic firms that will survive will be those that can produce milk BELOW the world price. However, it is likely that there are domestic producers that can do this (I don't really know the milk market but it's possible) and so the degree to which this domestic industry is destroyed is up for debate.
However, this is not all bad. Due to the lower price of milk, consumers can now afford to purchase other goods and services (the growth in the wealth of the consumers, or the consumer surplus, is found within the triangle). This stimulates demand and employment in other sectors.
>>618346
Easy; scarcity of equality and and surplus of liberty (or at least a larger amount of liberty than equality).
Lets say we're talking about food and water. I'd say water is more important than food, but you still need both. However, if I live near a lake with little to no animals to hunt, in spite of valuing water more I'll probably vote for food anyway.
>>624333
The oversupply is clearly a problem on the side of Burkino Faso. Five MILLION people, in one industry, in a country of 20 million? You bet there are going to be problems.
>>624435
Yeah, stimulating demand in other sectors sounds like it would be beneficial in the long run because it would help diversify their economy more.
Arguing to keep the oversaturated milk market's farmers in work is arguing to keep things unchanging, in a sense, when they could actually change for the better. Tough problems now could lead to smoother sailing down the road.
>>622859
Entrepreneurs aren't just passive receptors and reactors to demand, they *create* demand. Much more than the consumer does.
>>623497
if you never noticed anything entering your asshole, it would be the same if your mayor sold your anal virginity
the difference is when they don't use enough ether this time around and you wake up to discover yourself face down with a 450 lb sweaty grunting black guy on top of you before they drug you again, when you wake up you can do something about it instead of pretending it was just an awful awful dream
>>624541
>Say's Law
Shut up, you cretin.
>>624435
Except it's a poor backwards African country that has little meaningful infrastructure. The problem is that they can't just magically shift their human resources to biotech or whatever high yield industry there is.
>>624555
Well they'll need to shift at some point, and the time is clearly now. It's like ripping off a band-aid, it's going to hurt, but the sooner you do it the less your crusty ass, aging band-aid lets your wound fester.
Are you really arguing for letting 1/4th of their country remaining poor milk producers in an oversaturated market? What's the solution there, for them all to stay mutually impoverished? How would you rig the markets in their favor in a way that doesn't make the rest of their society pay for it?
I just don't follow the reasoning behind this at all. I don't think you can see the forest for the trees here.
>>624555
Could the economy be one driven by financial services and R&D within the next year? Of course not. Could the economy shift to other primary or secondary sectors within the decade? Much more likely.
>>625106
>having your economy oblitarated
I'm sorry, but I could not find anything about the Burkinabe economy being destroyed because of it. Actually, I was unable to find ANY mention of their economy (or even just milk industry) being harmed.
It seems that the majority of the population of Burkina Faso lives as subsistance farmers (80%), who tend to have their production unnafected by market changes. As a matter of fact, these people would have greatly benefited out of cheaper and better-quality products.
Not only that, I found that the Burkinabe exports are based, overwhelmingly, on gold and cotton and that their major milk company, Fan Milk, had actually been damaged by import restriction in the 1980s and 1990s.
>>624531
5M people was clearly a joke. I was just pointing out how ridiculous it would be, thus, the milk river example.
> Tough problems now could lead to smoother sailing down the road.
This is basically all deferred consumption. This no socialist or keynesian wants. Party now, pay later. Better yet, make your children pay.
>>624541
> Entrepreneurs *create* demand.
Are you trying to ruse me?
All entrepreneurs do is to supply to a present or future demand.
>>624553
Nah, it is much worse than that: I believe he was going into the "marketers brainwash people to consume" rant.
>>625106
> easier to transition if they actually had a working economy
> having your economy obliterated
A fall in consumption (and thus, Aggregate Demand) was never the end of the world for any country. It makes it more attractive to foreigners, leaving you in a more exporting AD mix, like the asian tigers.
>>625526
This. Whenever the 'international trade will destroy *blank* because of all the employment in the *blank* industry' theory is brought up, it ALWAYS turns out to be fabricated or overemphasised.
Whoever brought up the milk example didn't even have a good example.
Lets take a real simple example.
Made in USA.
Lots of people feel there has been a significant loss of jobs and infrastructure, due to corporate off-shoring of jobs and transfer of technology, resulting in a trade deficit, a lack of exports and disproportionate importing and capital investment, and the associated growth and profits, migrating to other countries.
Some people vote with their wallet, and buy made in USA.
Some people don't give a shit or think globalization is a good thing, and contribute to the trade deficit.
Then there's also people who end up in the situation where they think made in USA is a good thing, but feel that even if they vote with their wallet, that doesn't mean anyone else will, and to a rational consumer calculating cost-benefit analysis, they calculate that buying imported goods and adding to the trade deficit has a higher personal utility that voting with their wallet, even though a strong US economy and a reduced trade deficit may be in the long term benefit for the group.
>>625893
>having a current-account deficit is necessarily a bad thing
Because it surely is better for a society to have its choices limited, business competition hurt and more expensive products.
>>625893
> buying cheaper, better goods is inmoral because of muh strong nation
Tbh, I never understood why countries did not apply what Smith saw in nail factories in a larger scale: division of labour.
South Korea seems to do this quite well with ICT hardware. Bangladesh government, for instance, encouraging competition with them would be just harmful for Bangladesh. The same principle applies.
>>622471
It is not their government that is "okay", but the limits imposed on it by society combined with a strong moral tradition.
>>618656
Yes, equality can never* be achieved by natural means. There are too many factors.
Because of this, it must be enforced, which by its definition requires a deprivation of Liberty.
>>618346
There is no liberty without equality. I said that in the same thread a few weeks ago.
>>618426
>people who don't know how economics work?
People who talk like economics has is a definite set of views -instead of dozens of disagreeing schools- always expose themselves as being ignorant of economics.
>>627683
>Smith and Friedman
Not that I am aware of. Source?
>>627683
>both Smith and Friedman defended this
I find this highly unlikely
Modern capitalism is just a new form of feudalism.
This time, instead of leasing tracts of land to nobles, the government leases the production of products and services to businesses.
For example, instead of the government producing electricity by itself, it leases the rights to the production of electricity to corporations, that pay a rent, taxes, and then profit from the citizens. Whatever product or service that the government feels coporations would do more efficiently, it leases the rights to them.
Now, when there are many businesses after the same market, they have competition and it is good, because it forces them to be efficient.
But when something like Unilever, Microsoft, Nestle or Procter & gamble happens they stop having real competition. And when a corporation doesnt have real competition then, it isnt really capitalism isn't it? Said corporation becomes a kind of institution. A necessity.
Why should a society keep such kind of corporations as "for profit" organizations when they reach such a level of market share? When more than half of processed food, cleaning supplies, office supplies, bathroom supplies, etc. come from no more than 5 entities, can you really keep calling it capitalism?
>>627761
>>627735
They said it could negative long term effects. Obviously smith was anti-tariff fir the long term, protection of infant industries was just for the short term when they were vulnerable. Friedman acknowledged the important thing the issue was not the deficit itself as a metric, but the issue of foreign control of assets.
>However, it may be in one form or another including the possible tradeoff of foreign control of assets.
The key is both of them realized loss of infrastructure was a related phenomenon, which they tried to separate from trade deficit, which is why the emphasis was on loss of jobs and infrastructure.
You need capital to create economic activity. If you lose that capital it cripples your economic productivity.
>>627851
>the government leases the production of products and services to businesses.
I like what you're saying, but I'd name it corporatism, something capitalists actually despise.
> monopolies
Monopolies can be of two kinds:
Artificial: Licences, Intellectual Property, etc. Generally monopolic because of government intervention. Capitalists disagree over if this is something which "should" exist, to avoid restricting competition.
Natural: Given due to high barriers to entry in the sector, such as the huge amount of capital needed to establish a petroleum extracting capital.
This final category can be further broken down into contestable monopolies and non-contestable.
Contestable monopolies are such which other enterprises could emulate their cost structures in the short run, thus, producing at the same price and cost levels. To discourage this, the monopolist will (in the long run) produce at a price where only normal profits exist.
However, there may be predatory pricing against new competitors, but this is just another facet of barriers to entry. In this case, the question would reside in if the share of extraordinary profits that a new competitor would earn after surviving predation prices would be greater than the cost of it. In this sense, the threat of entry is also a way to limit monopolistic profits.
>>627912
No one says monopolistic profits are infinite an unlimited. That's a strawman. A monopoly would have to have the market completely cornered on a good with a completely inelastic demand. That doesn't mean monopolies aren't harmful. Monopoly prices are almost always limited by something, that doesn't mean that limit isn't high enough for them to be harmful.
>>627912
>To discourage this, the monopolist will (in the long run) produce at a price where only normal profits exist.
No, they just have to prove that they can still operate that those margins and still turn a profit, and any company that does break into the market will end up only seeing normal profits, making it not lucrative compared to any other investment with fewer barriers that will also see normal profits. The reduction to normal profits only has to be a reaction to competition, it does not need to exist during a state of no competition.
>>627912
I think one of the answers would be to prohibit a business from buying another one, specially a competing one. I think its only fair and it would have prevented the current situation.
>>627897
You still haven't provided a source and I doubt Friedman would be against the theory of comparative advantage.
>>627957
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contestable_market
Economists argue that determining price and output is not actually dependent on the type of market structure, in other words whether it is a monopoly or perfectly competitive market, but rather the threat of competition.
>>627984
Very few conglomeration (diversifying, buying "non competing") M&As prove to be economically fruitful, both for shareholders and the general public. Most ones which generate shareholder returns are specifically buying competing businesses.
A reason for starting a business is to get bought and cash out. It would disincentive entrepreneurship.
> it would have prevented the current situation
I'd say that consumer demand is the only thing that actually dictates long term situations, but whatever floats your boat.
>>628029
>Economists argue that determining price and output is not actually dependent on the type of market structure, in other words whether it is a monopoly or perfectly competitive market, but rather the threat of competition.
First, you forgot to quote, second you forgot to quote the part that says [citation needed]
>Economists argue[citation needed] that determining price and output is not actually dependent on the type of market structure, in other words whether it is a monopoly or perfectly competitive market, but rather the threat of competition.
No, I didn't add that. It's been [citation needed] for over a year, at least.
The pricing only has to be lowered when there's an actual competitor. If there's no competitor, prices can stay high.
>>628051
Let's say you're right.
Let's say there's a single business, making abnormal profits. What would potential businessmen do?
Having this in mind, to avoid competition, what would the single business do?
>>628069
>Let's say there's a single business, making abnormal profits. What would potential businessmen do?
They would see if they could also make abnormal profits.
>Having this in mind, to avoid competition, what would the single business do?
Signal that any potential competitor won't see a cent of abnormal profits, and quite possibly worse returns than another investment with fewer barriers.
>>628082
You are correct in both accounts.
How would the business impede potential competitors from taking a slice out of their abnormal profits?
>>628069
>>628082
And to take a somewhat recent and well known example.
You buy the rights (barriers) to Daraprim, and jack up the price 5000%. For another firm to produce a generic Daraprim, they have to overcome the barriers, both in costs and time. However, by having Daraprim previously be profitable at a much lower price, you've signaled you could operate at normal profits if forced to. Any resulting price war from competition will end up with them being undercut or normal profits.
>>628085
>How would the business impede potential competitors from taking a slice out of their abnormal profits?
A competitor could certainly take a chunk out of their abnormal profits if that was the goal of the competitor.
But it isn't. The competitor's goal is to maximize profit, not damage the income of another firm. All the monopolistic firm has to do is dissuade potential competitors that competition would be unprofitable for them.
There's no slice of abnormal profits to take. The Monopolistic firm will tank abnormal profits either to normal profit levels, or enough to undercut the new competitor, leaving the competitor with no abnormal profits, but a large cost to overcome the barriers.
The formerly monopolistic firm however, will be operating at normal profits, which is sustainable at least, or above normal profits, but undercutting the competition. It's more likely they will be able to undercut because of the way barriers work out, and because if the competitor leaves the market, they can jack up the prices again.
>>628091
> will end up with them being undercut or normal profits.
This is exactly what competition is, not just in a monopolistic market, but in any market. Some win, some lose, abnormal profits fall, prices benefit the consumer.
>>628110
>The formerly monopolistic firm however, will be operating at normal profits, which is sustainable at least, or above normal profits.
This is exactly what happens in the long run. I really don't see the problem for the consumer.
> if the competitor leaves the market, they can jack up the prices again.
Not if the market is contestable
>>628111
You don't seem to understand the point. The monopolistic firm will only engage in competition when there is a competitor. A monopolistic firm only has to signal that they are capable of out competing potential competitors, due to barriers, to keep them out of the market. If they are able to keep competitors out of the market, they don't have to compete.
The goal of the monopolistic firm is to dissuade competitors from competing. Competitors compete to profit, not just to damage the profits of another firm. If the monopolistic firm can convince a potential competitor that competing won't gain profits, the potential competitor will not compete, leaving the monopolistic firm with a monopoly.
>>628115
>This is exactly what happens in the long run.
It's what happens over the long run because of innovation, which shakes things up. But that's moving the goal posts anyways. The point is the monopolies don't have to set prices to deter potential competitors. They only have to signal they can reduce potential competitors profits to less than normal levels, either by undercutting or using the barriers to reduce profits.
>I really don't see the problem for the consumer.
I'm not even sure what you're trying to say. Monopolies charging more than they should is bad for the consumer.
>Not if the market is contestable
No market is perfectly contestable. This is a fact of life.
>>628135
here
To emphasize, is it not the existence of abnormal profits that causes competitors to compete. It is the potential for abnormal profits that convinces the competitor to compete, not to remove the presence of abnormal profits. That is a side effect of competition.
A firm can maintain abnormal profits so long as it can convince competitors that they will not see abnormal profits by competing, staving off competition.
