Capitalism vs. Socialism

[oreagan]

Pretty theories are nice to listen to, but that doesn't make them 100% correct. Just because mises.org has an answer for everything doesn't mean that those answers are correct nor 100% complete.

Let's talk monopolies. You say they don't exist. History would like a word with you.

The late 1890s and first two decades of the 1900s in America are referred to as the "Gilded Age." This term, coined by Twain, refers to a low-quality metal gilded over with gold or silver to make it appear nice. During this time period, a few monopolies and trusts completely dominated entire industries and abused their powers considerably. Entire families worked 12 hour or longer days, the children and women receiving a fraction of what the men did but working nontheless, and starved to death. Products were of poor quality because there was no competition to keep them honest. Farmers had to pay exhoridant fees to the railroads in order to move their goods and had no alternatives. U.S. Steel, Standard Oil, the railroads and a dozen other trusts were able to control entire industries and drive out any competitors. The railroads, especially through not exclusively, made huge profits through fraudulent accounting and financing and then paid off legislators and inspectors to get around what few laws there were against such practices. While a fictional book, Upton Sinclair's The Jungle is a fairly accurate representation of the times and the lives of citizens in this period.

These days, we have competitive firms, lower prices, very limited child labor, women earning (by law, if not in practice, sadly) what male counterparts do, a 40 hour work week, arrests and scandals when companies cook the books, and products kept to high quality standards by such agencies as the FDA. Yes, indeed, this is a grim and terrible future we live in.

 

[oreagan]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

The government "provides" important services, such as roads and security. But the truth of the matter is that there is no government service that could not be taken over by the private sector, and much more efficiently I might add. So I would have to disagree, the government is always the wrong answer.

So in Somalia and other chaotic third-world countries, why doesn't the complete lack of government lead to economic strength? Oh, yes, because warlords create private armies that feud constantly and use the meager resources to pay said armies. There is no law, no government, and no economy except for a meager black market. Whee!

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: oreagan

Originally posted by: Dissipate

The government "provides" important services, such as roads and security. But the truth of the matter is that there is no government service that could not be taken over by the private sector, and much more efficiently I might add. So I would have to disagree, the government is always the wrong answer.

So in Somalia and other chaotic third-world countries, why doesn't the complete lack of government lead to economic strength? Oh, yes, because warlords create private armies that feud constantly and use the meager resources to pay said armies. There is no law, no government, and no economy except for a meager black market. Whee!

Those countries suffer from deeply rooted cultural problems, not economic ones. The U.S. for the most part has not suffered from these problems, even when it was under a minarchy. Hence, in the U.S. anarchy would bring prosperity, while these African nations you refer to will war whether they have a government or not.

Fundamentally speaking, those in Africa have vastly different end rankings than Americans. Americans for the most part value prosperity through voluntary exchange, and education. This would not change just because the government is gone. In fact, Americans have always valued these things since the country's beginnings when places were pretty much lawless.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: oreagan
Pretty theories are nice to listen to, but that doesn't make them 100% correct. Just because mises.org has an answer for everything doesn't mean that those answers are correct nor 100% complete.

Let's talk monopolies. You say they don't exist. History would like a word with you.

The late 1890s and first two decades of the 1900s in America are referred to as the "Gilded Age." This term, coined by Twain, refers to a low-quality metal gilded over with gold or silver to make it appear nice. During this time period, a few monopolies and trusts completely dominated entire industries and abused their powers considerably. Entire families worked 12 hour or longer days, the children and women receiving a fraction of what the men did but working nontheless, and starved to death. Products were of poor quality because there was no competition to keep them honest. Farmers had to pay exhoridant fees to the railroads in order to move their goods and had no alternatives. U.S. Steel, Standard Oil, the railroads and a dozen other trusts were able to control entire industries and drive out any competitors. The railroads, especially through not exclusively, made huge profits through fraudulent accounting and financing and then paid off legislators and inspectors to get around what few laws there were against such practices. While a fictional book, Upton Sinclair's The Jungle is a fairly accurate representation of the times and the lives of citizens in this period.

These days, we have competitive firms, lower prices, very limited child labor, women earning (by law, if not in practice, sadly) what male counterparts do, a 40 hour work week, arrests and scandals when companies cook the books, and products kept to high quality standards by such agencies as the FDA. Yes, indeed, this is a grim and terrible future we live in.

Text

You have bought into a lot of statist myths. The work week was reduced by an increase of productivity brought about by technology mass produced in the free market, not government intervention. Standard Oil, U.S. Steel, the railroads etc. never had a monopoly. Go back and check your facts.

More on the work week here and here.

Monopolies exist, but only through artificial entry barriers created by government into certain industries, or by simply seizure of a particular industry. For instance when the government forcefully monopolized the issuance of currency in 1913.

 

[piasabird]

I am against our current form of child welfare because it has proven to be derogatory for the family unit. It promotes women having children out of wedlock. It is a detriment to society and not good for children.

 

[bdude]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Those countries suffer from deeply rooted cultural problems, not economic ones. The U.S. for the most part has not suffered from these problems, even when it was under a minarchy. Hence, in the U.S. anarchy would bring prosperity, while these African nations you refer to will war whether they have a government or not.

Fundamentally speaking, those in Africa have vastly different end rankings than Americans. Americans for the most part value prosperity through voluntary exchange, and education. This would not change just because the government is gone. In fact, Americans have always valued these things since the country's beginnings when places were pretty much lawless.

Deeply rooted cultural problems? Explain please.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: bdude

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Those countries suffer from deeply rooted cultural problems, not economic ones. The U.S. for the most part has not suffered from these problems, even when it was under a minarchy. Hence, in the U.S. anarchy would bring prosperity, while these African nations you refer to will war whether they have a government or not.

Fundamentally speaking, those in Africa have vastly different end rankings than Americans. Americans for the most part value prosperity through voluntary exchange, and education. This would not change just because the government is gone. In fact, Americans have always valued these things since the country's beginnings when places were pretty much lawless.

Deeply rooted cultural problems? Explain please.

There are many people in their society who would rather rape and pillage than do anything else. This has to do with tribal issues that go back many years. These traditions are passed down from generation to generation.

Read the beginning part of Man, Economy & State. It talks about end ranking and marginal utility. Austrians do not claim that there are no individuals or even societies that rank their ends in counter productive manners. However, the U.S. doesn't happen to be one of those societies. Furthermore, if the government no longer existed, there is nothing to say that the end rankings of Americans would suddenly change overnight. This idea that without government people would be throwing bombs in the street etc. is nonesense. If people really wanted to do that, the government wouldn't be able to do much to stop them anyways. Look at how long it took the government to squash the L.A. riots of '92.

 

[cmed]

Originally posted by: biostud666

Originally posted by: Dissipate<BR>2. The free market is actually the most efficient anti-poverty program ever created. For this reason reduction of taxes on the "rich" actually benefit wage earners. More on that here.

<BR><BR>And why does 12.1% of US citizens live in poverty?

Poverty is a subjective word. Remember, when the government says X% of people live in poverty, it is using the American standard.

My family was in "poverty" when I was young. We had more and were better off then my mother and father in law, who are living off the German retirement. My mother-in-law's doctor told her three months ago that she was too old (70) for the lung operation that she needs.

I am not saying that poverty in the USA doesn't exist, but many people around the world would like to upgrade to american version of poverty.

 

[oreagan]

Originally posted by: cmed

Originally posted by: biostud666

Originally posted by: Dissipate<BR>2. The free market is actually the most efficient anti-poverty program ever created. For this reason reduction of taxes on the "rich" actually benefit wage earners. More on that here.

<BR><BR>And why does 12.1% of US citizens live in poverty?

Poverty is a subjective word. Remember, when the government says X% of people live in poverty, it is using the American standard.

My family was in "poverty" when I was young. We had more and were better off then my mother and father in law, who are living off the German retirement. My mother-in-law's doctor told her three months ago that she was too old (70) for the lung operation that she needs.

I am not saying that poverty in the USA doesn't exist, but many people around the world would like to upgrade to american version of poverty.

11 million children in the United States (roughly as many children as there are people in Cuba, total) live in homes without the ability to provide food and housing. How's that for poverty?

Edit: Census.gov tells me 12.7 million, actually.

 

[oreagan]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: oreagan
Pretty theories are nice to listen to, but that doesn't make them 100% correct. Just because mises.org has an answer for everything doesn't mean that those answers are correct nor 100% complete.

Let's talk monopolies. You say they don't exist. History would like a word with you.

The late 1890s and first two decades of the 1900s in America are referred to as the "Gilded Age." This term, coined by Twain, refers to a low-quality metal gilded over with gold or silver to make it appear nice. During this time period, a few monopolies and trusts completely dominated entire industries and abused their powers considerably. Entire families worked 12 hour or longer days, the children and women receiving a fraction of what the men did but working nontheless, and starved to death. Products were of poor quality because there was no competition to keep them honest. Farmers had to pay exhoridant fees to the railroads in order to move their goods and had no alternatives. U.S. Steel, Standard Oil, the railroads and a dozen other trusts were able to control entire industries and drive out any competitors. The railroads, especially through not exclusively, made huge profits through fraudulent accounting and financing and then paid off legislators and inspectors to get around what few laws there were against such practices. While a fictional book, Upton Sinclair's The Jungle is a fairly accurate representation of the times and the lives of citizens in this period.

These days, we have competitive firms, lower prices, very limited child labor, women earning (by law, if not in practice, sadly) what male counterparts do, a 40 hour work week, arrests and scandals when companies cook the books, and products kept to high quality standards by such agencies as the FDA. Yes, indeed, this is a grim and terrible future we live in.

Text

You have bought into a lot of statist myths. The work week was reduced by an increase of productivity brought about by technology mass produced in the free market, not government intervention. Standard Oil, U.S. Steel, the railroads etc. never had a monopoly. Go back and check your facts.

More on the work week here and here.

Monopolies exist, but only through artificial entry barriers created by government into certain industries, or by simply seizure of a particular industry. For instance when the government forcefully monopolized the issuance of currency in 1913.

Consider for a moment that Mises.org is not the only basis of facts in the world.

Even if that were an accurate reply, you've only addressed one of the questions. What about child labor? Equal pay for equal work? Allowing companies to cook the books without any punishment? Allowing companies to advertise falsely and mislead consumers into buying snake oil? Should we abolish the FDA?

 

[Spencer278]

If the goverment can establish a monoploy and any function of the goverment can be done by the private sector then how come the private sector can't establish a monoploy?

 

[biostud]

Originally posted by: Spencer278
If the goverment can establish a monoploy and any function of the goverment can be done by the private sector then how come the private sector can't establish a monoploy?

Because it's not under democratic control.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Spencer278
If the goverment can establish a monoploy and any function of the goverment can be done by the private sector then how come the private sector can't establish a monoploy?

Good question. That's the thing, the private sector CAN establish a monopoly, if it can get the government to keep competitors out, which is the case in a variety of industries.

Outside of government intervention it is virtually impossible though. Economist George Reisman critiques all the popular myths of economic monopolies (predatory pricing, restriction of supply, cartels, tendency towards a single firm) etc. starting on page 392 of Capitalism. Oh yeah, and for Oreagan, Reisman dispels the myth of the Standard Oil monopoly starting on page 407.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: oreagan

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: oreagan
Pretty theories are nice to listen to, but that doesn't make them 100% correct. Just because mises.org has an answer for everything doesn't mean that those answers are correct nor 100% complete.

Let's talk monopolies. You say they don't exist. History would like a word with you.

The late 1890s and first two decades of the 1900s in America are referred to as the "Gilded Age." This term, coined by Twain, refers to a low-quality metal gilded over with gold or silver to make it appear nice. During this time period, a few monopolies and trusts completely dominated entire industries and abused their powers considerably. Entire families worked 12 hour or longer days, the children and women receiving a fraction of what the men did but working nontheless, and starved to death. Products were of poor quality because there was no competition to keep them honest. Farmers had to pay exhoridant fees to the railroads in order to move their goods and had no alternatives. U.S. Steel, Standard Oil, the railroads and a dozen other trusts were able to control entire industries and drive out any competitors. The railroads, especially through not exclusively, made huge profits through fraudulent accounting and financing and then paid off legislators and inspectors to get around what few laws there were against such practices. While a fictional book, Upton Sinclair's The Jungle is a fairly accurate representation of the times and the lives of citizens in this period.

These days, we have competitive firms, lower prices, very limited child labor, women earning (by law, if not in practice, sadly) what male counterparts do, a 40 hour work week, arrests and scandals when companies cook the books, and products kept to high quality standards by such agencies as the FDA. Yes, indeed, this is a grim and terrible future we live in.

Text

You have bought into a lot of statist myths. The work week was reduced by an increase of productivity brought about by technology mass produced in the free market, not government intervention. Standard Oil, U.S. Steel, the railroads etc. never had a monopoly. Go back and check your facts.

More on the work week here and here.

Monopolies exist, but only through artificial entry barriers created by government into certain industries, or by simply seizure of a particular industry. For instance when the government forcefully monopolized the issuance of currency in 1913.

Consider for a moment that Mises.org is not the only basis of facts in the world.

Even if that were an accurate reply, you've only addressed one of the questions. What about child labor? Equal pay for equal work? Allowing companies to cook the books without any punishment? Allowing companies to advertise falsely and mislead consumers into buying snake oil? Should we abolish the FDA?

Mises.org is not the only basis of facts in the world, but it is where I get almost all of my facts regarding economics, simply because it is the best source of information on the school of economics I subscribe to. Furthermore, mises.org basically just collects and organizes the work of Austrian scholars. It doesn't really publish everything itself.

Child labor is not always necessarily exploitation. In fact, child labor is desirable in some situations, especially situations in which a child must work in order to survive. It really depends on the values of the particular family. To say that every child should go to school and get a government education is ridiculous. Free &amp; compulsory = prison time, in my book.

This is not to say that we shouldn't condemn abuse of a child by a parent. Obviously, if a child is forced to work in some factory where they are beaten on a regular basis, society should stop that from happening.

About cooking the books, all I have to say about that is take a look at what happened at some of the big corporations that tried that. They are all totally bankrupt and the executives of them are stigmatized forever. This has nothing to do with the fact that the Justice Department slapped the cuffs on them either. The free market will always reward the honest and punish the dishonest. This is not to say that inspite of the market's self regulation that there shouldn't be entities that right wrongs and track down fraudsters. However, these entities should not be owned &amp; operated by the government.

Absolutely the FDA should be abolished. The FDA is a horrible bureaucracy that drives up the cost of drugs and keeps potentially life saving drugs off the market and away from people who really need them.Text

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Kibbo
Dissipate,

Charlie's posts were far from incoherent.

Until you fully address the questions of Monopolistic inefficiency, free riders, the sub-optimal provision of public goods, and the lack of property rights that lead to externalities, you will continue to seem to be running away from him. Note that none of your pretty links directly addressed those points.

Also, you do not properly address how private property rights would be protected in a perfectly private world. What would keep me from building up a larger "security force" and taking your land?

Hmm, ok. Let's see:

The price of any good cannot be accurately determined under capitalism either. For this to happen you need to have markets for all goods, including all future goods. And you can't allow trading to take place until all consumers (including ones who are born yet) have had their chance to make all their decisions for all periods based on the perfectly symetrical information available to, and understood by, everyone.

Good try on the USSR - predicting the downfall of a non-socialist country due to the real world effects of not implementing pure socialism. I'll give him this much: he's able to correctly conclude that economics based on ideology is pretty much doomed to fail. Makes one appreciate the surprising effectiveness of the hypocrisy and confusion inherent in the Western market/socialism jumble, doesn't it?

What the hell is he talking about? I thought he was talking about the fact that capitalism has imperfect information, then when I addressed that issue he had some other incoherent response.

You claim that you can avoid the problem of asymetric information by treating that information as a market good. Not only does this fail to resolve the original problem of asymetric information causing incomplete markets, it leads to its own set of problems. Here you are, I'll post the REALLY important one again:

3. There is no rational method of judging the value of information that you do not yet possess. So tell me how, exactly, I could decide rationally how much to purchase. i.e. tell me how to calculate the marginal value of information you don't already have!

For the moment, this one even lets you off the hook for not having perfectly symetrical information about markets available to everyone (needed to avoid a litany of market failures, including rampant arbitrage). I'd be impressed if you could find an answer to even this half of the problem though.

I'm sorry Kibbo, I understand that you are trying to defend one of your fellow comrade socialist buddies, but if you do that here you are as nutty as he is.

While they are rampant here, most members of P&amp;N are quite capable of separating personal attacks from actual arguments. Try to learn the strength of your material, and how to present it effectively, rather than resorting to calling me a 'comrade socialist', which displays ignorance, both of the nature of my posts, and that of socialists.

FTR: if you want to call me nutty, go ahead; there's no sense arguing about that; it's like trying to convince the bartender you're sober (whether you are or aren't, you'll say the same things, so you aren't going to convince them of anything!). Kibbo on the other hand doesn't deserve such name-calling at all, and normally impresses me and others with his logic and good writing. You might also want to look up his 'dream' proposal for a fair tax system before you go about thinking he is a socialist.

 

[Kibbo]

This is patently false: some consumers purchase less (some may purchase as much if their demand for the good in the relevent price range is entirely inelatsic; think buying gas for your car; price is irrelevant within reason) than at the competitive price of the good, albeit at a higher price; others purchase much less, or drop out of the market entirely.

I would just like to point out that this would lead to an inefficient loss of production, and less employment as a result.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Kibbo
Dissipate,

Charlie's posts were far from incoherent.

Until you fully address the questions of Monopolistic inefficiency, free riders, the sub-optimal provision of public goods, and the lack of property rights that lead to externalities, you will continue to seem to be running away from him. Note that none of your pretty links directly addressed those points.

Also, you do not properly address how private property rights would be protected in a perfectly private world. What would keep me from building up a larger "security force" and taking your land?

Hmm, ok. Let's see:

The price of any good cannot be accurately determined under capitalism either. For this to happen you need to have markets for all goods, including all future goods. And you can't allow trading to take place until all consumers (including ones who are born yet) have had their chance to make all their decisions for all periods based on the perfectly symetrical information available to, and understood by, everyone.

Good try on the USSR - predicting the downfall of a non-socialist country due to the real world effects of not implementing pure socialism. I'll give him this much: he's able to correctly conclude that economics based on ideology is pretty much doomed to fail. Makes one appreciate the surprising effectiveness of the hypocrisy and confusion inherent in the Western market/socialism jumble, doesn't it?

What the hell is he talking about? I thought he was talking about the fact that capitalism has imperfect information, then when I addressed that issue he had some other incoherent response.

You claim that you can avoid the problem of asymetric information by treating that information as a market good. Not only does this fail to resolve the original problem of asymetric information causing incomplete markets, it leads to its own set of problems. Here you are, I'll post the REALLY important one again:

3. There is no rational method of judging the value of information that you do not yet possess. So tell me how, exactly, I could decide rationally how much to purchase. i.e. tell me how to calculate the marginal value of information you don't already have!

That is complete and utter bunk. Under your theory no one would know how much to pay for a newspaper, stock reports, consumer reports, marketing data etc. This is of course completely false. As long as people know what the information is about and that it will inform them on a particular subject they don't need to have the information in their hands in order to value it. Furthermore, using the method of reductio ad absurdum we could extend your theory to virtually anything else in the economy, including plain old goods and services. Ater all, under your theory how could anyone judge the value of say a rasberry ice cream cone until they actually possessed it? The actual quality of a particular product of a particular firm can often only be judged after the sale of the product. This is true of information as it is true of many other things in the economy. But this does not mean that consumers cannot make initial judgements as to how much they value a particular good or service. Furthermore, just like in any other industry some firms become very reliable sources of information, while others gain reputations of disseminating tainted or false information. Why are people willing to spend 35 cents to pick up an L.A. Times? Because they know that the L.A. Times newspaper will have information that they want to read, and it has that information everyday of the week. They don't need to have the newspaper in their hands in order to decide whether or not to buy it.

Furthermore, everyone has different marginal utilities for different things. There are fundamental properties of marginal utility, for instance, the fact that it diminishes. But beyond those there is no way to say why someone would have a different marginal utility for one product vs. another. Hence, the actual process of people ranking their ends is going to vary from person to person, this is true of information as it is for anything else. Therefore, it would be impossible for me or anyone else to explain how this process works exactly, for even one person.

For the moment, this one even lets you off the hook for not having perfectly symetrical information about markets available to everyone (needed to avoid a litany of market failures, including rampant arbitrage). I'd be impressed if you could find an answer to even this half of the problem though.

Ok, I did my part. Now you explain to me how the government magically solves your false theories about information under pure capitalism.

I'm sorry Kibbo, I understand that you are trying to defend one of your fellow comrade socialist buddies, but if you do that here you are as nutty as he is.

While they are rampant here, most members of P&amp;N are quite capable of separating personal attacks from actual arguments. Try to learn the strength of your material, and how to present it effectively, rather than resorting to calling me a 'comrade socialist', which displays ignorance, both of the nature of my posts, and that of socialists.

FTR: if you want to call me nutty, go ahead; there's no sense arguing about that; it's like trying to convince the bartender you're sober (whether you are or aren't, you'll say the same things, so you aren't going to convince them of anything!). Kibbo on the other hand doesn't deserve such name-calling at all, and normally impresses me and others with his logic and good writing. You might also want to look up his 'dream' proposal for a fair tax system before you go about thinking he is a socialist.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Dissipate, you've run from every argument by creating a strawman or a completely different set of circumstances.

You haven't remotely answered the quetion I asked. And your reductio argument is both misnamed, since what you are really describing is a slippery slope, and innaccurate: in an economy without cheaters (which capitalism also requires) I would know what to expect from a rasberry ice cream. I would still have no way of valuing unknown information, since I wouldn't have anything to compare it to.

You don't even understand the basic arguments of the economic philosophy you claim to follow. At least learn them before you spout off here.

and btw:

Furthermore, everyone has different marginal utilities for different things. There are fundamental properties of marginal utility, for instance, the fact that it diminishes. But beyond those there is no way to say why someone would have a different marginal utility for one product vs. another. Hence, the actual process of people ranking their ends is going to vary from person to person, this is true of information as it is for anything else. Therefore, it would be impossible for me or anyone else to explain how this process works exactly, for even one person.

You've either missed the point, or you're hoping I will go fishing after this rubbish. You don't have to describe the 'process' or even assign a value to information to answer my question. You need to descibe how any rational person could place a value on something they know nothing about!

You haven't 'done your part' at all. You've simply rehashed sophomoric responses to legitimate problems with your chosen philosophy.

And on a side note, I buy newspapers for entertainment purposes, not for the information they contain; I can get better than that for free.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Dissipate, you've run from every argument by creating a strawman or a completely different set of circumstances.

You haven't remotely answered the quetion I asked. And your reductio argument is both misnamed, since what you are really describing is a slippery slope, and innaccurate: in an economy without cheaters (which capitalism also requires) I would know what to expect from a rasberry ice cream. I would still have no way of valuing unknown information, since I wouldn't have anything to compare it to.

You don't even understand the basic arguments of the economic philosophy you claim to follow. At least learn them before you spout off here.

and btw:

Furthermore, everyone has different marginal utilities for different things. There are fundamental properties of marginal utility, for instance, the fact that it diminishes. But beyond those there is no way to say why someone would have a different marginal utility for one product vs. another. Hence, the actual process of people ranking their ends is going to vary from person to person, this is true of information as it is for anything else. Therefore, it would be impossible for me or anyone else to explain how this process works exactly, for even one person.

You've either missed the point, or you're hoping I will go fishing after this rubbish. You don't have to describe the 'process' or even assign a value to information to answer my question. You need to descibe how any rational person could place a value on something they know nothing about!

I just explained that people place value on information every single day. Newspapers, books, newsletters, magazines, Internet sites, videos etc. etc. etc. Ask anyone if they know nothing about what they are purchasing when they pick up any of these mediums of information and they will most likely say NO. They know exactly what they are buying, and how much they are willing to pay for it. This process is absolutely no different than any other good or service, it just so happens that the precise manner in how equilibrium prices in the free market are formed in general is highly complex. I suggest you either take an upper division course in economics or read Man, Economy, and State. No economist I have ever heard of has ever claimed that the forming of equilibrium prices in the free market requires government intervention. If there is one, please show me their material, I would be very interested in reading it. Not even Karl Marx made this argument.


You haven't 'done your part' at all. You've simply rehashed sophomoric responses to legitimate problems with your chosen philosophy.

And on a side note, I buy newspapers for entertainment purposes, not for the information they contain; I can get better than that for free.

The purpose for your purchasing that information is irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant here is the fact that you placed a value on this information before having read all of it.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Dissipate, you've run from every argument by creating a strawman or a completely different set of circumstances.

You haven't remotely answered the quetion I asked. And your reductio argument is both misnamed, since what you are really describing is a slippery slope, and innaccurate: in an economy without cheaters (which capitalism also requires) I would know what to expect from a rasberry ice cream. I would still have no way of valuing unknown information, since I wouldn't have anything to compare it to.

You don't even understand the basic arguments of the economic philosophy you claim to follow. At least learn them before you spout off here.

and btw:

Furthermore, everyone has different marginal utilities for different things. There are fundamental properties of marginal utility, for instance, the fact that it diminishes. But beyond those there is no way to say why someone would have a different marginal utility for one product vs. another. Hence, the actual process of people ranking their ends is going to vary from person to person, this is true of information as it is for anything else. Therefore, it would be impossible for me or anyone else to explain how this process works exactly, for even one person.

You've either missed the point, or you're hoping I will go fishing after this rubbish. You don't have to describe the 'process' or even assign a value to information to answer my question. You need to descibe how any rational person could place a value on something they know nothing about!

I just explained that people place value on information every single day. Newspapers, books, newsletters, magazines, Internet sites, videos etc. etc. etc. Ask anyone if they know nothing about what they are purchasing when they pick up any of these mediums of information and they will most likely say NO. They know exactly what they are buying, and how much they are willing to pay for it. This process is absolutely no different than any other good or service, it just so happens that the precise manner in how equilibrium prices in the free market are formed in general is highly complex. I suggest you either take an upper division course in economics or read Man, Economy, and State. No economist I have ever heard of has ever claimed that the forming of equilibrium prices in the free market requires government intervention. If there is one, please show me their material, I would be very interested in reading it. Not even Karl Marx made this argument.


You haven't 'done your part' at all. You've simply rehashed sophomoric responses to legitimate problems with your chosen philosophy.

And on a side note, I buy newspapers for entertainment purposes, not for the information they contain; I can get better than that for free.

The purpose for your purchasing that information is irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant here is the fact that you placed a value on this information before having read all of it.

No, it isn't irrelevant - I can purchase a newspaper for entertainment and have no interest in gaining any information; afterall, it may be worth it to me to read the comics and toss the rest; in that case, it can easily be stated that I haven't purchased information at all.

Treating newspapers as the world's only source of information is unbelievably close-minded (or, should I say, simply convenient for your purposes). There are many other sources of information that must be purchased, with no particular foreknowledge of what value will be obtained. You can't win this little piece of the argument because you can't show that information is the same as other goods; it is inherently unknown, and of unknown value.

As I've stated in another thread, I'm getting tired of arguing with an ideologue who responds to criticism by restating the theory that was the source of the criticism.

And for the record, if I hadn't already taken several high-level economics courses, I wouldn't have nearly the knowledge of markets to be able to level these criticisms at your particular philosophy.

I've also taken more than a few behavioural anfd 'rational choice' psychology courses, and I'm quite comfortable commenting on how little we know about human behaviour. You claim in another thread that austrian economics is based on axioms of human behaivour; guess what? NO PSYCHOLOGIST WOULD CLAIM TO HAVE ACCESS TO THESE AXIOMS. They are not axioms of human behaviour, but rather rules of rational behaviour, which are generally not followed by real people!

Since you are intent on having this argument turn in circles, and consistently point me to 'proofs' that I have already read and criticized here, there's not much point continuing this discussion.

-cheers

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Dissipate, you've run from every argument by creating a strawman or a completely different set of circumstances.

You haven't remotely answered the quetion I asked. And your reductio argument is both misnamed, since what you are really describing is a slippery slope, and innaccurate: in an economy without cheaters (which capitalism also requires) I would know what to expect from a rasberry ice cream. I would still have no way of valuing unknown information, since I wouldn't have anything to compare it to.

You don't even understand the basic arguments of the economic philosophy you claim to follow. At least learn them before you spout off here.

and btw:

Furthermore, everyone has different marginal utilities for different things. There are fundamental properties of marginal utility, for instance, the fact that it diminishes. But beyond those there is no way to say why someone would have a different marginal utility for one product vs. another. Hence, the actual process of people ranking their ends is going to vary from person to person, this is true of information as it is for anything else. Therefore, it would be impossible for me or anyone else to explain how this process works exactly, for even one person.

You've either missed the point, or you're hoping I will go fishing after this rubbish. You don't have to describe the 'process' or even assign a value to information to answer my question. You need to descibe how any rational person could place a value on something they know nothing about!

I just explained that people place value on information every single day. Newspapers, books, newsletters, magazines, Internet sites, videos etc. etc. etc. Ask anyone if they know nothing about what they are purchasing when they pick up any of these mediums of information and they will most likely say NO. They know exactly what they are buying, and how much they are willing to pay for it. This process is absolutely no different than any other good or service, it just so happens that the precise manner in how equilibrium prices in the free market are formed in general is highly complex. I suggest you either take an upper division course in economics or read Man, Economy, and State. No economist I have ever heard of has ever claimed that the forming of equilibrium prices in the free market requires government intervention. If there is one, please show me their material, I would be very interested in reading it. Not even Karl Marx made this argument.


You haven't 'done your part' at all. You've simply rehashed sophomoric responses to legitimate problems with your chosen philosophy.

And on a side note, I buy newspapers for entertainment purposes, not for the information they contain; I can get better than that for free.

The purpose for your purchasing that information is irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant here is the fact that you placed a value on this information before having read all of it.

No, it isn't irrelevant - I can purchase a newspaper for entertainment and have no interest in gaining any information; afterall, it may be worth it to me to read the comics and toss the rest; in that case, it can easily be stated that I haven't purchased information at all.

Treating newspapers as the world's only source of information is unbelievably close-minded (or, should I say, simply convenient for your purposes). There are many other sources of information that must be purchased, with no particular foreknowledge of what value will be obtained. You can't win this little piece of the argument because you can't show that information is the same as other goods; it is inherently unknown, and of unknown value.

As I've stated in another thread, I'm getting tired of arguing with an ideologue who responds to criticism by restating the theory that was the source of the criticism.

And for the record, if I hadn't already taken several high-level economics courses, I wouldn't have nearly the knowledge of markets to be able to level these criticisms at your particular philosophy.

I've also taken more than a few behavioural anfd 'rational choice' psychology courses, and I'm quite comfortable commenting on how little we know about human behaviour. You claim in another thread that austrian economics is based on axioms of human behaivour; guess what? NO PSYCHOLOGIST WOULD CLAIM TO HAVE ACCESS TO THESE AXIOMS. They are not axioms of human behaviour, but rather rules of rational behaviour, which are generally not followed by real people!

Since you are intent on having this argument turn in circles, and consistently point me to 'proofs' that I have already read and criticized here, there's not much point continuing this discussion.

-cheers

Uh, ok, like I said before please point me in the direction of an economist who claims that a purely capitalist stystem would not be able to calculate. I have not heard this argument against anarcho-capitalism anywhere at anytime from anyone, and I have read about and debated a large number of arguments against anarcho-capitalism. Aside from the sale of information in the free market, that was the main point of contention. Frankly, I've provided you with numerous sources supporting my points, and you have provided me with nothing but ridiculous claims (such as above). Furthermore, you have not been able to tell me how it is possible that people buy and sell information everyday in the free market, or why some information is much more valuable than other information. Under your theory information would have no market because no one would know how much to pay for it, or if it did have a market the prices in that market would be random and arbitrary. Under your theory Time magazine might as well cost as much as marketing data that took many man hours to harvest, and could unlock enormous profits in a particular industry. Obviously, in the real world this is not the case.

As for praxeology, you are mistaken once again. Praxeology has nothing to do with psychology, it has to do with the fact that humans act. That is all. Normal people DO act, and thus, economics can be studied within the context of this action. Here is a book for you.

If you want the argument to stop going in circles, show me a source of authority to support your claims. As far as I'm concerned the ball is in YOUR court. I've said pretty much all that can be said on this subject.

 

[robbase29a]

Socialism has been tried many times, and has failed every time. Even in this country it's been tried - with some of the early settlers. I think an easy way to understand the failings of socialism is by noting that government control and redistribution of wealth takes incentive away from people. Why should I work harder if I notice that by doing so, I'm just getting more tired while the bum next to me is going to reap the same benefits? Socialism will never work for beings as flawed as us humans, and I hope this country of ours (USA) steers away from it. Now if you'll excuse me... the American Dream awaits me, and I shall continue on my journey without the government involved - too much.

~®~

 

[chess9]

Is this thread still alive? Good grief.

We are all socialists in America.

Do you have a checking account? Do you want the money you put in it from your paycheck to be there tomorrow? I thought so. Who do you think guarantees that if the bank fails-as many banks did in 1907-that you will get your money? In 1913 Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act which gave our banks the stability they needed to grow our economy and protect your money. All of those bank employees are federal employees and are paid with your tax dollars.

Do you want to defend your country?

Do you want fire and police protection?

Do you think capaitalism has benefitted from an interstate highway system paid for with YOUR tax dollars?

Please, the naivete of Libertarian wannabes and their Pluto-esque supporters is hilarious.

This thread has not been worthy of a high school history class or economics class. Shallow, shallow thinking. Please, before you post, learn something.

-Robert

 

[Mockery]

Originally posted by: chess9

We are all socialists in America.

-Robert

We are about as much socialists in this country as we are capitalists.

Our society is a direct mixing of these two economic ideologies. This debate is a reflection of where every individual feels the line between these two systems needs to be drawn.

As many people have pointed out already?.a compromise between these two needs to be upheld; for both Capitalism and Socialism in its unrefined form would destroy current day America as we know it.

robbase29a-

you have made some very valid points...

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: chess9
Is this thread still alive? Good grief.

We are all socialists in America.

Do you have a checking account? Do you want the money you put in it from your paycheck to be there tomorrow? I thought so. Who do you think guarantees that if the bank fails-as many banks did in 1907-that you will get your money? In 1913 Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act which gave our banks the stability they needed to grow our economy and protect your money. All of those bank employees are federal employees and are paid with your tax dollars.

Do you want to defend your country?

Do you want fire and police protection?

Do you think capaitalism has benefitted from an interstate highway system paid for with YOUR tax dollars?

Please, the naivete of Libertarian wannabes and their Pluto-esque supporters is hilarious.

This thread has not been worthy of a high school history class or economics class. Shallow, shallow thinking. Please, before you post, learn something.


-Robert

LMAO! I think that you should take your own advice. The Federal Reserve is the linchpin of a banking cartel which siphons billions of dollars out of everyone's paycheck into the government, and government contractors. 1500% inflation since 1913 and growing. It has to do with stability alright, it was set up to stabilize an inherently fraudulent system. Here are a couple of books you should read to educate yourself. (long read)The Creature From Jekyll Island and or (short read)The Case Against the Fed and here is a downloadable video as well. Money, Banking and the Federal Reserve

I would defend my country but I would never join the military to do it, because the military is controlled by the state.

I would like to have police and fire protection, but I do not want the government to provide it. In any event, this police "protection" is mostly arresting people for minor drug offenses. Some "protection."

I think that capitalism has benefitted from highways in the sense that if they did not exist capitalism would be worse off. But compared to what private roads would have provided, these socialized highways have cost industry billions of dollars a year in traffic jams. Here are a variety of publications on privatizing roads from economist Walter Block: Publications (scroll down to road privatization).

I am not a socialist, or a libertarian wannabe. I truly want to end ALL government. The fact that I am practically forced to partake in socialism in order to live in this country (i.e. driving down socialized roads) does not make me a wannabe. It just illustrates the fact that the government is a string of loosely knit rackets, and nothing more.