Which is more important to the US?

[Wraith]

--"I don't want to be offensive, but this is utterly stupid."

I do want to be offensive, so I'll have to say that this only because of your clearly nonexistant knowledge of economics. Any system other than laissez-faire capitalism invloves taking money from some people to give to others. (If you don't like that, replace "money" with "work". Either way, it adds up to slavery.)

--"Yes, anti-murder law limit my freedom to kill too."

Statements like this are self-contradictory. You are misusing the word "freedom". As always, I am arguing from a natural rights perspective and my terminology is the same as Ayn Rand's.

--"Time to grow up, pals, "freedom" is not "doing everything you want"."

This is amusing coming from someone who is misusing the term. If you know that's not what "freedom" is, why do you suggest that's what I'm saying it is?

--"economic freedom is not personal freedom."

Yes, it is, at least in part. There is also a political freedom, but the two are pretty much tied together. If you lose one, you'll lose the other very quickly.

--"so laissez faire economy equals slavery to whatever the big capital dictates."

I'm just plain tired of even trying to argue with people who come out with crap like this. Maybe the best way to get you anwered would be to post your little comments on the econo-thread.
David, don't even bother arguing with him. We've both seen this exact same argument way too many times to expect to get through.

--"We could see that in the awful work conditions in the XIXth century for the workers."

Which had what to do with laissez faire capitalism? Government granted monopolies, government allowing infringements of individual rights by corporations (ie. allowing groups like the Pinkertons to use to physical violence against unions), government subsidies and protectionism... not very much laissez faire going on.

--"Btw, there is a mathematical proof(forgot name of it)"

How convenient for you. If you don't name it, then no one can possibly refute it. Nice argument tactic.

Honestly, does no one take economics classes any more?

Wraith
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyrrany. Free men pull in all kinds of directions. It's the only way to make progress."
-- Terry Pratchett (The Truth)

[Akka]

Well Wraith, as the usual free capitalist fan, you just come and assume that nobody know anything about economy than any other free capitalists.



Well Keynes knew nothing about economics neither, ok.

--"Yes, anti-murder law limit my freedom to kill too."

Statements like this are self-contradictory. You are misusing the word "freedom". As always, I am arguing from a natural rights perspective and my terminology is the same as Ayn Rand's.

I know that irony is not something you can sell and buy in marketplaces. But you DO know about its existence, right ?
If you recognize that there is time where doing what you want is infringing other's rights, then you agree that laws are needed ? Well, economics are not differents, without law there is infringements of other's freedom.

Again :
Laws are not always equal to less freedom.
Lack of laws is only putting back the law of the strongest.

[TCO]

Originally posted by David Floyd


You mean a mixed economy, ie the current form of "capitalism", right?

Correct, sideline quarterback. This is preferable to socialism.

[TCO]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Further, even some uneducated guy still has choice - he can, for example, join the military.

Grrr...or there's always being a bull major at UT.

[David Floyd]

Laws are not always equal to less freedom.
Lack of laws is only putting back the law of the strongest.

Correct! Which is why I fully support laws against corporate fraud, for example, as fraud removes the voluntar aspect of certain actions and becomes coercive. As government has the moral obligation to protect individuals from coercin and initiation of force, fraud should certainly be illegal.

As for the rest, I won't bother as Wraith already answered it the same way I would have.

[TCO]

Originally posted by paiktis22
another construction company will not offer 2 dolalrs in a free market because that would raise costs and cut earnings.

also it doesn't have to because it does not need to attract workers. workers will be forced to work there to make a living.

so the company has to be made to not take people on slave wages - socialism.

also if all contsruction workers go to the military then the military will soon stop having free slots and so the problem returns.

1. Companies will gladly increase expenses if the return pasy for it. This is why pharma companies spend money on research looking for new drugs. It's quite expensive, but the returns that you can get in the US justify it.

2. When I was in Breck, working at a manual labor hourly job, there wasn't a single company that could compete at even the legal minimum wage. All had to offer more to get labor. and workers would switch like little sluts for the extra dollar... Allowing 1 dollar a month would have no effect there...

[David Floyd]

Grrr...or there's always being a bull major at UT.

Indeed so, but my "bull major" will not result in a menial labor job, so it's all good. And FYI I was set to sign the ROTC contract, already had my interview with the recruiter, but two steel rods in my arm disqualified me

[TCO]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
The dream of a free market that would reach a fair equilibrium is just that : a dream.
We could see that in the awful work conditions in the XIXth century for the workers.
Just like anarchy, free market lead only to the rule of the strong and oppression of the weaks, it's just that it's money rather than physical strenght that counts.

Yet people flocked to be exploited. It was better than subsistence farming, the situation in the century before.

[TCO]

Originally posted by kolpo

Btw, there is a mathematical proof(forgot name of it) that proofed that the base of Adam Smith his theories "you are best for the others and yourself if you only strive for your own selfish needs" is incorrect. The correct version is: You are best for yourself and the others if you strive for what is best for you and the others(perfect example of this are virtual cartels).

Actually you are a little confused. Go re-read a freshman econ text. The society is better off if there is free competion. Only the cartel members are better off with monopolistic pricing. You can graphically prove that there is a "deadweight loss" to the society if a cartel exists.

[TCO]

Originally posted by David Floyd




Indeed so, but my "bull major" will not result in a menial labor job, so it's all good. And FYI I was set to sign the ROTC contract, already had my interview with the recruiter, but two steel rods in my arm disqualified me

Sorry to hear about your disqualifying injury. Some military training would have been a good growing up experience for you.

[Ecthy]

And you couldn't say all that in one post why?

[Shi Huangdi]

Capitalism. Democracy is a bad system and hopefully we'll never have it here. Having a Constitutional Republic however, that is much better then a democracy and is a very good system.

[Ecthy]

Would that be what you have there then?

So are you being sarcastic or what? I have never seen an American saying his country was not democratic before.

[TCO]

just replying as I read.

BTW, little Eastie, there was an article in the WSJ about junkers returning to their old East estates...

[Wraith]

--"Well Keynes knew nothing about economics neither, ok."

He didn't seem to know a whole lot. Most of his work has been pretty thouroughly discredited, not that politicians let a little thing like that keep them from basing their policies on his work.

--"If you recognize that there is time where doing what you want is infringing other's rights, then you agree that laws are needed ?"

It's called "minarchism". The only just purpose of government is to protect its citizens' rights. Period. This can be acomplished perfectly well without interfering in the economy. All they have to do is enforce contracts and protect rights. No protectionims, no welfare (corporate or otherwise), no monopoly grants, etc.

--"It's quite expensive, but the returns that you can get in the US justify it."

This is getting to not be the case, actually. The steadily increasing amount of regulation, combined with the steadily increasing amount of pressure to socialize drugs (the UN doesn't seem to have a problem with IP theft, I notice) has reduced the profitability greatly. There used to be over thirty major research labs in the US on this, but we're down to something like four now.

Wraith
"Now let's get something straight: you are not in my debt. Impossible -- because I never do anything I don't want to. Nor does anyone, but in my case I know it."
-- Jubal Harshaw ("Stranger In A Strange Land")

[David Floyd]

Some military training would have been a good growing up experience for you.

Well I was doing it for fitness and money, and to get a step up in terms of being a lawyer.

[Ecthy]

Originally posted by GP
just replying as I read.

BTW, little Eastie, there was an article in the WSJ about junkers returning to their old East estates...

good for you

[Akka]

Originally posted by Wraith
--"Well Keynes knew nothing about economics neither, ok."

He didn't seem to know a whole lot. Most of his work has been pretty thouroughly discredited, not that politicians let a little thing like that keep them from basing their policies on his work.

Yes, that's right. It's why USA get out of the Great Depression by using his ideas.
Well, ok, you're just the true caricature of the free market fans : anybody that does not think like you "don't know anything about economics".

--"If you recognize that there is time where doing what you want is infringing other's rights, then you agree that laws are needed ?"

It's called "minarchism". The only just purpose of government is to protect its citizens' rights. Period. This can be acomplished perfectly well without interfering in the economy. All they have to do is enforce contracts and protect rights. No protectionims, no welfare (corporate or otherwise), no monopoly grants, etc.

Well, what's really depressing is that you actually BELIEVE in this pile of nonsense.

Economics is a force like politic, and hence it can be as oppressive as politics. If you can accept the idea of a political suppression of freedom, then you can accept the idea of an economical suppression of freedom.
Just plain logic.

[TCO]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Well I was doing it for fitness and money, and to get a step up in terms of being a lawyer.

Yeah, I remember those comments. Your reasons for doing it are suspect. But the team environment and exposure to others would be good for you, regardless. Read A Sense of Honor by James Webb.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes, that's right. It's why USA get out of the Great Depression by using his ideas.

Actually we got out of the Depression because of WW2.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil



Yes, that's right. It's why USA get out of the Great Depression by using his ideas.

It took 9 years. Not exactly a stunning victory.

[David Floyd]

Yes, that's right. It's why USA get out of the Great Depression by using his ideas.

The New Deal didn't end the Depression. Although government intervention certainly caused it.

If you can accept the idea of a political suppression of freedom, then you can accept the idea of an economical suppression of freedom.

I disagree. The only measure of freedom is the protection of individual rights. A free market system is the natural extension of protecting individual rights.

[Ecthy]

Originally posted by Ecthelion
Would that be what you have there then?

So are you being sarcastic or what? I have never seen an American saying his country was not democratic before.

[David Floyd]

Yeah, I remember those comments. Your reasons for doing it are suspect.

They certainly aren't patriotic in nature

As to that book, maybe I'll pick it up, need something new to read anyway.

[kolpo]

Originally posted by GP
Actually you are a little confused. Go re-read a freshman econ text. The society is better off if there is free competion. Only the cartel members are better off with monopolistic pricing. You can graphically prove that there is a "deadweight loss" to the society if a cartel exists.

I'm talking here about virtual cartels, this means : no agreements or negation between the companies they simply all use there common sense.

Imagine you a very simple economy: Making cola costs 1 dollar, the maxium price buyers will pay if there is no lower price elsewhere is 6 dollar. There are 2 cola companies who's only goal is to make profit, company A and B, they both control 50% of the market.

Currently sell they both cola for 3 dollar.

A is thinking:
-What would happen if I lower my price by 1 dollar? In the beginning will my market share raise, until B his market share is lowered so much that his only way to survive is lowering his price also with 1 dollar, result: still have both 50% of market but 1 dollar less profit on cola.

-What would happen if I don't do anything? Nothing most likely but I want more money! money! money!

-Now get's he an evil smile: What will happen if I raise my price with 1 dollar if I consider the fact that B wants money just as I want it? 2 possibilities:
-B is smart and follows me: we both have more profit on cola and still same market share!
-B is stupid and doesn't follow me, then do I simply lower my price again after some time will that be forgotten and will we both again control 50%!

But given the fact that B is most likely smart(he has set up a whole cola company) and given that fact that he just like A wants money will he most likely follow A.

After a time: both are selling cola at 6 dollar and making maxium profit! They have done nothing illegal, there where no agreements, no official negogations, no official cartel! They have both followed the base of Adam Smith his theory(wish to make as much profit as possible) but have yet leaded to the fact that consumers have to pay lot's for there cola. In this case would the consumer be better of if the government forced a maxium price for cola! In this case are the consumers better of with government interferance!

[Imran Siddiqui]

-What would happen if I don't do anything? Nothing most likely but I want more money! money! money!

-Now get's he an evil smile: What will happen if I raise my price with 1 dollar if I consider the fact that B wants money just as I want it? 2 possibilities:
-B is smart and follows me: we both have more profit on cola and still same market share!
-B is stupid and doesn't follw me, then do I simply lower my price again after some time will that be forgotten and will we both again control 50%!

But given the fact that B is most likely smart(he has set up a whole cola company) and given that fact that he just like A wants money will he most likley follow A.

Um... like GP said, go re-read a frosh econ textbook. If the guy from B is smart, he will continue to sell at his price, because people will buy more from him. By increasing the price, A is being stupid. It will make LESS money because demand will then fall below the supply. B makes a killing and A loses a ton.

[TCO]

Agreed, kolpo.

However you earlier said that the society was better off if a cartel functioned.

BTW, you can draw the supply/demand curves and examine the case you mentioned. It is a dead-weight loss. and involves monopoly behavior. As long as the comopanies collude, it is irrelevant (from a supply/demand persepective) if they are following an agreement, if they merege, if they just signal each other, if the read game theory books, etc.

Basically all you are saying is that society (and especially consumers) are better off with free competition than with cartels/monopolies. And you are making a slight argument for trust busting. You might want to also think about how many companies can effectively collude. The thumbrule that I've heard is 4. Anything above that and it gets pretty tough...

[kolpo]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

-What would happen if I don't do anything? Nothing most likely but I want more money! money! money! -Now get's he an evil smile: What will happen if I raise my price with 1 dollar if I consider the fact that B wants money just as I want it? 2 possibilities: -B is smart and follows me: we both have more profit on cola and still same market share! -B is stupid and doesn't follw me, then do I simply lower my price again after some time will that be forgotten and will we both again control 50%! But given the fact that B is most likely smart(he has set up a whole cola company) and given that fact that he just like A wants money will he most likley follow A.

Um... like GP said, go re-read a frosh econ textbook. If the guy from B is smart, he will continue to sell at his price, because people will buy more from him. By increasing the price, A is being stupid. It will make LESS money because demand will then fall below the supply. B makes a killing and A loses a ton.

NO! like I said won't A losses a ton because he is smart, so if B doesn't follow will A simply lower his price again and after a time will they then still be both equal. So B his advantage is in that case only very temporial. On the other hand if B follows A will he gain a lasting increase in profit! B is not stupid like adam smith assumed so B follows A. I find it strange that people keeping believing in economic theories who have been proved wrong by mathematic proof where nobody found a flaw in(forgot name of that proof but will look it up if you want)

[TCO]

korpo, and you should realize that Adam Smith DID discuss the incentives for collusion.

[kolpo]

A perfect example of that in action are the Belgian banks. If one raises it's intrests on loans does often suddenly all banks start to do that within a few days(no I'm not talking about intrest raises cause by drastic sudden events).