[Severus]

Originally Posted by Clueless To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Would it make a difference to you if it were called something else? The government is the pawn of the interests of accumulated wealth. That's the whole point. A free market cannot exist simultaneously with an ability to accumulate wealth. The federal reserve (private) and other wealthy individual interests are actually in control, not the government. It is the continued sequesterization of societal produced wealth which, in a democratic society results in an increasing movement toward socialism. The increased siphoning of wealth production to the benefit of wealthy interests and detriment of the masses results over time in an increased tendency of the masses to vote for government subsidization. It's a vicious cycle brought about by a flawed system. I still prefer a market system over socialism or communism, but we must recognize what really is the root cause of dysfunction.

"Capitalism, in the terminology of these foes of liberty, democracy, and the market economy, means the economic policy advocated by big business and millionaires. Confronted with the fact that some—but certainly not all—wealthy entrepreneurs and capitalists nowadays favor measures restricting free trade and competition and resulting in monopoly, they say: Contemporary capitalism stands for protectionism, cartels, and the abolition of competition. It is true, they add, that at a definite period of the past British capitalism favored free trade both on the domestic market and in international relations. This was because at that time the class interests of the British bourgeoisie were best served by such a policy. Conditions, however, changed and today capitalism, i.e., the doctrine advocated by the exploiters, aims at another policy.

It has already been pointed out that this doctrine badly distorts both economic theory and historical facts. There were and there will always be people whose selfish ambitions demand protection for vested interests and who hope to derive advantage from measures restricting competition. Entrepreneurs grown old and tired and the decadent heirs of people who succeeded in the past dislike the agile parvenus who challenge their wealth and their eminent social position. Whether or not their desire to make economic conditions rigid and to hinder improvements can be realized, depends on the climate of public opinion. The ideological structure of the nineteenth century, as fashioned by the prestige of the teachings of the liberal economists, rendered such wishes vain. When the technological improvements of the age of liberalism revolutionized the traditional methods of production, transportation, and marketing, those whose vested interests were hurt did not ask for protection because it would have been a hopeless venture. But today it is deemed a legitimate task of government to prevent an efficient man from competing with the less efficient. Public opinion sympathizes with the demands of powerful pressure groups to stop progress. The butter producers are with considerable success fighting against margarine and the musicians against recorded music. The labor unions are deadly foes of every new machine. It is not amazing that in such an environment less efficient businessmen aim at protection against more efficient competitors.

It would be correct to describe this state of affairs in this way: Today many or some groups of business are no longer liberal; they do not advocate a pure market economy and free enterprise, but, on the contrary, are asking for various measures of government interference with business. But it is entirely misleading to say that the meaning of the concept of capitalism has changed and that "mature capitalism"—as the American Institutionalists call it—or "late capitalism"—as the Marxians call it—is characterized by restrictive policies to protect the vested interests of wage earners, farmers, shopkeepers, artisans, and sometimes also of capitalists and entrepreneurs. The concept of capitalism is as an economic concept immutable; if it means anything, it means the market economy. One deprives oneself of the semantic tools to deal adequately with the problems of contemporary history and economic policies if one acquiesces in a different terminology. This faulty nomenclature becomes understandable only if we realize that the pseudo-economists and the politicians who apply it want to prevent people from knowing what the market economy really is. They want to make people believe that all the repulsive manifestations of restrictive government policies are produced by "capitalism."" - Ludwig von Mises, Human Action

---------- Post added 02-20-2012 at 12:07 AM ----------

	Originally Posted by Clueless To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It's an academic argument. No response is warranted.

But you said that you have mastered logic. Post 178 identifies a blatant, obvious logical flaw in your reasoning.

[Clueless]

Mises lived in a different era. He died in 1972 if I'm not mistaken. If I had only seen what he was able to see I may have viewed things exactly the same way.

The point I've been trying to make all along whether you understand and agree with other things I've posted, is that the market economy we have now does not function properly or in a way that's sustainable and realizes greatest benefit to greatest number of inhabitants.

It is a grotesque evolution. In the US, the crisis in the financial sector that nearly brought down the global economy was caused by rampant, unregulated speculation. There is a distinct difference between investment and speculation. For decades now in the US, capital has flowed too heavily toward speculation and too lightly toward investment. I have no idea of all the policy decisions that have created this environment. What I know is that there will be regulation.

If it's a given that there'll be regulation, we need to get it right. It's not been right, or headed in the right direction for several decades in my estimation. I'd say we've been screwing it up since about the time of Mises death, give or take.

If I've confused several disciplines in trying to understand and convey that understanding, my apologies. I've just been trying to describe the world around us, albeit without the benefit of a formal education that would allow me to speak the language.

---------- Post added 02-19-2012 at 11:33 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by Severus To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	But you said that you have mastered logic. Post 178 identifies a blatant, obvious logical flaw in your reasoning.

Practical logic. And it need only be separated in my own mind. Prove differently, it is philosophy after all. LOL

[Severus]

	Originally Posted by Clueless To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The aggregate availability of human action is wealth for within it lies the potential to achieve desired ends.

This is wrong. The actual achievement of the desired ends constitutes wealth. Human action not exerted towards attaining desired ends does not create wealth.

	Originally Posted by Clueless To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It was just my way of saying that a market economy will always be subjected to the influence of persons of accumulated wealth.

What you don't understand is that, in a market economy, persons of accumulated wealth attained that wealth by best serving the valuations of consumers, and they maintain that wealth only by employing it towards further serving the valuations of the consumers. To be sure, a person of accumulated wealth can remove his wealth from production and devote it entirely towards consumption, but he would be consuming his capital; sooner or later, his wealth will run out.

[Clueless]

	Originally Posted by Severus To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	This is wrong. The actual achievement of the desired ends constitutes wealth. Human action not exerted towards attaining desired ends does not create wealth.

Hence the qualifier; POTENTIAL. Wealth also is not created if the attempt is made without success.

Originally Posted by Severus To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

What you don't understand is that, in a market economy, persons of accumulated wealth attained that wealth by best serving the valuations of consumers, and they maintain that wealth only by employing it towards further serving the valuations of the consumers. To be sure, a person of accumulated wealth can remove his wealth from production and devote it entirely towards consumption, but he would be consuming his capital; sooner or later, his wealth will run out.

My goodness! Have you ever run a business? I have. Several. Have you ever owned a business? I have. Several.

I understand all these things you think that I don't understand.

I made that statement in response to someone advocating anarchism. It's my opinion that we will always have regulations and thus market intervention because structure is required to impose rules of law and rights of ownership. We cannot allow the influences of persons of accumulated wealth negatively impact the structure. That's all I was trying to indicate.

The problems in the US today are not all attributable to the voting of welfare recipients, and really, my guess is that the problems are more attributable to selfish wealthy interests with the apparent need for government subsidization of the working poor being an outgrowth.

---------- Post added 02-19-2012 at 11:56 PM ----------

It seems a lot of the disagreement may stem from the difference in perspective of textbook learning versus real-world learning.

[titi monkey]

This is kind of funny; it's like trying to piece together a puzzle, not being quite sure if it's some kind of devious mind-fuck or something that's actually viable. Here's my latest attempt (correct me where I'm wrong):

Beyond subsistence level, consumers don't only have the choice of buying one or the other of competing products; they have the choice of not buying anything at all.

If a preponderance of consumers have relatively little money available for discretionary spending, many products will become less expensive to entice the consumer to part with her money.

This is where the circularity comes in: a producer sees that a low price point awaits her in the market, and therefore pays her employees lower wages so she can meet that price point.

Because the laborer and the consumer are one and the same, lower wages means less discretionary spending, means lower prices, means lower wages.

The producer, who controls the work of other people (because nothing can get done without somebody lifting a finger = human effort) begins with just a small profit, perhaps because of a lot of competition in the market. But over time, the profit increases and the successful producers become wealthy.

Wealthy people have the power, through the law and the lawmakers (who are beholden to them), to erect barriers to real competition, so that it is they (the wealthy) who control which items will be made available and at what price point.

In this way, the market is manipulated by limiting the choices the consumer has available to her. This causes dissatisfaction and (eventually) anger and frustration towards the powers that be. Rebellion is the logical conclusion.

To avoid such a widening gap between the greater wealthy and the lesser wealthy, the compensation of the lowest wage earner should be pegged to the highest wage earner so that the one can't move ahead without towing the other along. Should the folks at the top a company make more money, those at the bottom will also make more money.

In their role as consumers, this means greater discretionary funds available, which means greater choice, which means greater competition, which means less concentration of wealth, which means greater freedom.



But what has all of this to do with the wealthy destroying themselves by investing in a falsely created demand?

"Human nature indicates that the level of intrinsic demand will be proportionate to the overall wealth of the society in which it exists. Demand cannot be recognized by the market if not accompanied by money. So the tendency of capitalist structures to produce growing wealth disparity results in a misrepresentation of demand which produces an irrational allocation of resources, with potentially disastrous consequences. In the United States one must look no farther than the recent housing bubble collapse. Demand for new structures was driven not by qualified buyers and a shortage of homes but by mortgage backed securities in need of new mortgages. This was top-down demand, which was an irrational allocation of resources and very damaging to society as a whole."

Why must the misrepresentation of demand result in an irrational allocation of resources?

[Clueless]

	Originally Posted by titi monkey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	This is kind of funny; it's like trying to piece together a puzzle, not being quite sure if it's some kind of devious mind-fuck or something that's actually viable. Here's my latest attempt (correct me where I'm wrong):

Well just so ya know I feel the same way, and I started this mess. lol

	Originally Posted by titi monkey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Beyond subsistence level, consumers don't only have the choice of buying one or the other of competing products; they have the choice of not buying anything at all.

Correct.

	Originally Posted by titi monkey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If a preponderance of consumers have relatively little money available for discretionary spending, many products will become less expensive to entice the consumer to part with her money.

Incorrect. If a preponderance of consumers have such little money as to not meet subsistence level needs within the society in which they reside, it gives rise to an apparent need for government intervention.

	Originally Posted by titi monkey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	This is where the circularity comes in: a producer sees that a low price point awaits her in the market, and therefore pays her employees lower wages so she can meet that price point.

This doesn't follow. In the event that domestic demand falls based on competition from abroad the end result is exportation of jobs to a location with lowered production costs.


The circularity to which I was referring was a repudiation of the apparent "self-justification" some of these people have tried to support with regard to market operations. They seem to think that wages and prices are always correct simply because they're a result of market operations. There's no logic in that idea.

	Originally Posted by titi monkey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Because the laborer and the consumer are one and the same, lower wages means less discretionary spending, means lower prices, means lower wages.

Because wage earners represent the bulk of demand, and humanity is the true source of all demand, a failure to include living humans results in an inaccurate representation of true demand. For humans included but undercompensated to the point of being unable to afford subsistence within the given society, it can be said that demand for those is under-represented.
Humand paid above the true value are then over-represented in the market.

	Originally Posted by titi monkey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The producer, who controls the work of other people (because nothing can get done without somebody lifting a finger = human effort) begins with just a small profit, perhaps because of a lot of competition in the market. But over time, the profit increases and the successful producers become wealthy.

This doesn't follow. The only thing that makes sense is that successful producers should earn profit and thereby become more wealthy.

	Originally Posted by titi monkey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Wealthy people have the power, through the law and the lawmakers (who are beholden to them), to erect barriers to real competition, so that it is they (the wealthy) who control which items will be made available and at what price point.

Too much there. I can agree to wealthy interests lobbying to erect barriers to competition.
What items are produced and at what price point are all normal market functions.

	Originally Posted by titi monkey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	In this way, the market is manipulated by limiting the choices the consumer has available to her. This causes dissatisfaction and (eventually) anger and frustration towards the powers that be. Rebellion is the logical conclusion.

No. What leads to dissatisfaction and social upheaval is perceived inequality. Has nothing to do with limited choices, but rather limited ability to achieve fulfillment.

	Originally Posted by titi monkey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	To avoid such a widening gap between the greater wealthy and the lesser wealthy, the compensation of the lowest wage earner should be pegged to the highest wage earner so that the one can't move ahead without towing the other along. Should the folks at the top a company make more money, those at the bottom will also make more money.

I don't know about that, but generally speaking I do advocate for a more equitable distribution of income than what we see today in the US. The distribution we have presents a distorted picture of demand to the market.

	Originally Posted by titi monkey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	In their role as consumers, this means greater discretionary funds available, which means greater choice, which means greater competition, which means less concentration of wealth, which means greater freedom.

I can agree with virtually all of that.

	Originally Posted by titi monkey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	But what has all of this to do with the wealthy destroying themselves by investing in a falsely created demand?

Simply because of unsustainability.

"Human nature indicates that the level of intrinsic demand will be proportionate to the overall wealth of the society in which it exists. Demand cannot be recognized by the market if not accompanied by money. So the tendency of capitalist structures to produce growing wealth disparity results in a misrepresentation of demand which produces an irrational
allocation of resources, with potentially disastrous consequences. In the United States one must look no farther than the recent housing bubble collapse. Demand for new structures was driven not by qualified buyers and a shortage of homes but by mortgage backed securities in need of new mortgages. This was top-down demand, which was an irrational allocation of resources and very damaging to society as a whole."

	Originally Posted by titi monkey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Why must the misrepresentation of demand result in an irrational allocation of resources?

Because the market responds to the demand present. If the demand is distorted the result is a distortion in resource allocation.

[Traverser]

	Originally Posted by Clueless To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I don't even know what you're talking about here. Did you actually read the post? Where do you get these wild, off-the-wall assumptions about what I think or believe? Please explain where you would have determined from anything posted by me, that I believe the market is a zero-sum game. Take your time.

You're funny.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


---------- Post added 02-20-2012 at 11:04 AM ----------

	Originally Posted by Clueless To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	We cannot allow the influences of persons of accumulated wealth negatively impact the structure. That's all I was trying to indicate.

In what way do they negatively affect it, though? By rent-seeking of government subsidies (as you point out)? Then yes. By theft or fraud, or aggression? Then yes. But if through pure competition, then there is no negative consequences to their having relatively more wealth than others.

	Originally Posted by Clueless To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The problems in the US today are not all attributable to the voting of welfare recipients, and really, my guess is that the problems are more attributable to selfish wealthy interests with the apparent need for government subsidization of the working poor being an outgrowth.

It's a mixture of elements, mostly having to do with wealthy rent-seeking interests. However, wealth alone does not create these kinds of distortions you mention in a free market. So long as people consent to a system of monopolized force and arbitration (which we, as anarchists are against; we're not against rules per se, as you seem to think) it becomes much easier to bribe rule-makers and enforcers.

	Originally Posted by Clueless To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It seems a lot of the disagreement may stem from the difference in perspective of textbook learning versus real-world learning.

Oh, so that's where you get most of your economic reasoning now? I thought it was Marx all this time.

---------- Post added 02-20-2012 at 11:19 AM ----------

	Originally Posted by INTroJect To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Looks loke there is some good debate going on in here. do i need to read through all of the pages to get up to speed, or can i just jump in and throw some arrogant assumptions around? Maybe someone can summarize the key debating issue so that i dont misread the context?

From "intrinsic value" to "everyone doesn't understand me". Pretty much. Otherwise, it's best that you read the posts for yourself. :/

[Clueless]

	Originally Posted by Traverser To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You're funny. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Cool. I'm glad you think so. But you never provided something I've posted that would have allowed you to draw the conclusion you indicated; that being that I believe an economic system is a zero-sum game.


You'll note in one recent post I opined that what will happen is what's actually been happening since the dawn of civilization. That is; the standard of living will continue to rise for all inhabitants with the only questions being degree of uniformity and the accompanying social upheaval.

Such a statement clearly is consistent with human endeavor being a positive-sum game.


If you spent more time intaking information and less time trying to demonstrate your own intelligence you might learn something.

You remind me of both my teenage sons. I'll give you two phrases I use with them all the time.

1. It's hard to listen with your mouth.

2. It's what you learn after you know it all, that truly counts.

---------- Post added 02-20-2012 at 11:04 AM ----------

	Originally Posted by Traverser To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	In what way do they negatively affect it, though? By rent-seeking of government subsidies (as you point out)? Then yes. By theft or fraud, or aggression? Then yes. But if through pure competition, then there is no negative consequences to their having relatively more wealth than others.

Never said there was. The points of my comments are these universal truths: There will always be some sort of social structure. Persons will always attempt to influence that structure to suit their own selfish interests. Persons of accumulated wealth will generally be more effective in such an undertaking.

Do you take issue with these points?

Originally Posted by Traverser To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

It's a mixture of elements, mostly having to do with wealthy rent-seeking interests. However, wealth alone does not create these kinds of distortions you mention in a free market. So long as people consent to a system of monopolized force and arbitration (which we, as anarchists are against; we're not against rules per se, as you seem to think) it becomes much easier to bribe rule-makers and enforcers.

Yes. Yes. I'm sure you've got it all figured out. Let me know when you've accomplished something real in life besides spending your parents' money.

	Originally Posted by Traverser To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Oh, so that's where you get most of your economic reasoning now? I thought it was Marx all this time.

I mentioned Marx a couple times because of a vague familiarity with his thoughts on Capitalism and you infer that he's my entire inspiration? Sounds like you've got incredible powers of deductive reasoning aye?

---------- Post added 02-20-2012 at 11:19 AM ----------

	Originally Posted by Traverser To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	From "intrinsic value" to "everyone doesn't understand me". Pretty much. Otherwise, it's best that you read the posts for yourself. :/

Nah, Don't bother! Just ask this accomplished young gentleman what's up. He can tell you exactly how it all works. If you don't believe it just ask him.

[Traverser]

Originally Posted by Clueless To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Cool. I'm glad you think so. But you never provided something I've posted that would have allowed you to draw the conclusion you indicated; that being that I believe an economic system is a zero-sum game. You'll note in one recent post I opined that what will happen is what's actually been happening since the dawn of civilization. That is; the standard of living will continue to rise for all inhabitants with the only questions being degree of uniformity and the accompanying social upheaval. Such a statement clearly is consistent with human endeavor being a positive-sum game.

Alright, I'll concede that I misunderstood you. Needless to say, it is true that those with more wealth have greater capacity to do harm. Moving on.

	Originally Posted by Clueless To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If you spent more time intaking information and less time trying to demonstrate your own intelligence you might learn something. You remind me of both my teenage sons. I'll give you two phrases I use with them all the time. 1. It's hard to listen with your mouth. 2. It's what you learn after you know it all, that truly counts.

Mockery begets mockery. So please, mock away!
[HIDE="Un garde!"]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
[/HIDE]

	Originally Posted by Clueless To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Never said there was. The points of my comments are these universal truths: There will always be some sort of social structure. Persons will always attempt to influence that structure to suit their own selfish interests. Persons of accumulated wealth will generally be more effective in such an undertaking. Do you take issue with these points?

Nope. A misunderstanding, it seems. Still waiting on your actual method of determining intrinsic value, assuming it exists, of course.

	Originally Posted by Clueless To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yes. Yes. I'm sure you've got it all figured out. Let me know when you've accomplished something real in life besides spending your parents' money.

...yo momma!

	Originally Posted by Clueless To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I mentioned Marx a couple times because of a vague familiarity with his thoughts on Capitalism and you infer that he's my entire inspiration? Sounds like you've got incredible powers of deductive reasoning aye?

I wasn't the one proposing a labor theory of value, and intrinsic value, both of which are not things you learn from practice as a business owner. At best, it's voodoo accounting subject to wild imagination, as there has yet to be any kind of "objective" method to determine them, let alone objectively pointing how they determine market prices.

	Originally Posted by Clueless To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Nah, Don't bother! Just ask this accomplished young gentleman what's up. He can tell you exactly how it all works. If you don't believe it just ask him.

Tut tut! Don't be modest! Your posts speak for themselves, just as mine do!

[Clueless]

	Originally Posted by Traverser To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Alright, I'll concede that I misunderstood you. Needless to say, it is true that those with more wealth have greater capacity to do harm. Moving on.

Sounds good.

	Originally Posted by Traverser To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Mockery begets mockery. So please, mock away! [HIDE="Un garde!"] To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. [/HIDE]

Rather not, non-productive pursuit.

	Originally Posted by Traverser To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Nope. A misunderstanding, it seems. Still waiting on your actual method of determining intrinsic value, assuming it exists, of course.

Never claimed there was one. Stated several times that value measurements of any kind are inherently subjective.

	Originally Posted by Traverser To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	...yo momma!

Don't know what to make of that? Choosing to disregard.

	Originally Posted by Traverser To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I wasn't the one proposing a labor theory of value, and intrinsic value, both of which are not things you learn from practice as a business owner. At best, it's voodoo accounting subject to wild imagination, as there has yet to be any kind of "objective" method to determine them, let alone objectively pointing how they determine market prices.

I never claimed that my controversial intrinsic values could be measured, or that they corresponded in any way to market prices. The only statement I made was that they are less volatile. Water always has utility to humans and therefore never becomes worthless, no matter the social circumstances.

Truth be told, a whole lot of the understanding I've developed was actually inspired by my study of Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger. In my efforts as an investor I've paid close attention to what they do and what they say. The term "intrinsic value" is a Buffett term, at least as far as I'm concerned. I got that from him specifically, didn't know Marx ever used it.

	Originally Posted by Traverser To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Tut tut! Don't be modest! Your posts speak for themselves, just as mine do!

A "know-it-all" is never quite so annoying as when he's presenting an idea which challenges your own view. Funny how that works.

[crowbird213]

Traverser. You seem to have a problem with rich people. Correct me if I'm wrong. What I say is, look in your closet, look in the garage, look in your kitchen, look at everything around you that is different than a hut. Rich people did that. As far as the harm that the rich can do. To me it happens when some rich divert(steal) capital (human and otherwise) from the production of material things that make are lives what they are. Follow the money trail from government. Education, military, healthcare, welfare. I have virtually no respect for the crony capitalism involved in these industries. These are not consumer driven at all. They steal from the consumers/producers. There is nothing really wrong the messiness of supply and demand. It works better than any master proffesor could really think of. The problem is the politicians rolls in the economy. They steal from one area of the economy(usually the producers) and give it to another( usually friends in the military and/or medical field. Standards of living will fall.

[INTelliJent]

Originally Posted by crowbird213 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Traverser. You seem to have a problem with rich people. Correct me if I'm wrong. What I say is, look in your closet, look in the garage, look in your kitchen, look at everything around you that is different than a hut. Rich people did that. As far as the harm that the rich can do. To me it happens when some rich divert(steal) capital (human and otherwise) from the production of material things that make are lives what they are. Follow the money trail from government. Education, military, healthcare, welfare. I have virtually no respect for the crony capitalism involved in these industries. These are not consumer driven at all. They steal from the consumers/producers. There is nothing really wrong the messiness of supply and demand. It works better than any master proffesor could really think of. The problem is the politicians rolls in the economy. They steal from one area of the economy(usually the producers) and give it to another( usually friends in the military and/or medical field. Standards of living will fall.

You obviously misunderstand Traverser.

[crowbird213]

In your short and to the point ways, give me a take on what traverser believes. You guys seem to know each other. Sometimes the technicality of what he writes makes me suspicious of him. My intelligence is only above avg. But i usually let my strong N carry me in life.

[INTelliJent]

You could read Man, Economy, and State, with Power and Market and probably get a pretty good idea.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


There are plenty of other good books as well but this one is definitely a magnum opus.

[crowbird213]

WOW! Can I basically get that info in a folky Ayn Rand book? If so, I'll stick to that. BTW. I hate that those hypocritical tea party types like that awfull movie "Atlas Shrugged".

[INTelliJent]

I've never read any of Rand's stuff, so I couldn't tell you.

[crowbird213]

She, Jim Rogers and Henry Ford are who taught me economics. They are all Kind of folky but highly successfull nonetheless. Give me your favorite economics book that is not so technical. thanks

[Traverser]

Originally Posted by crowbird213 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Traverser. You seem to have a problem with rich people. Correct me if I'm wrong. What I say is, look in your closet, look in the garage, look in your kitchen, look at everything around you that is different than a hut. Rich people did that. As far as the harm that the rich can do. To me it happens when some rich divert(steal) capital (human and otherwise) from the production of material things that make are lives what they are. Follow the money trail from government. Education, military, healthcare, welfare. I have virtually no respect for the crony capitalism involved in these industries. These are not consumer driven at all. They steal from the consumers/producers. There is nothing really wrong the messiness of supply and demand. It works better than any master proffesor could really think of. The problem is the politicians rolls in the economy. They steal from one area of the economy(usually the producers) and give it to another( usually friends in the military and/or medical field. Standards of living will fall.

You definitely misunderstood me. I was merely pointing out that being rich, defacto, means you are relatively more capable of doing harm. But the opposite is also true; you have the capacity to do more good. I was just being fair toward Clueless; and I've already explained to him that unless these are criminals, rich people generally acquire their wealth through peaceful productive means. In fact, a few good family friends of mine are fabulously wealthy, whereas other family friends are unfabulously poor (as am I, relatively speaking)

And it's always relative; compared to kings and queens in the past, the common man is now insanely rich in the sense that while he/she may not have a standing army, we have technology and an abundance of goods never before dreamed by our ancient predecessors.

Since you're new here, I don't blame you for assuming this given the cookie-cutter aspect of individual posts. As an arnarcho-libertarian (aka anarco-capitalist), I think you'll find us to be in total agreement about government meddling and rent-seeking behavior of crony-capitalists (who we both know are not true capitalists, but those who bastardize the market system through government force).

[crowbird213]

give me examples of wealthy people doing harm with his/her wealth.

[Traverser]

	Originally Posted by crowbird213 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	give me examples of wealthy people doing harm with his/her wealth.

I thought my explanation was pretty clear. Is it not correct that a man with $1,000,000 can buy more guns OR produce more medicine than myself? Or hire more thugs, or more workers? Or a combination of both?

[Clueless]

	Originally Posted by INTelliJent To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Please quote me as saying "conserving" human effort leads to greater wealth.

You said it right here:

	Originally Posted by INTelliJent To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The majority of our progress has been figuring out how to get machines/animals to do our work (labor) for us.

You see, if you're saying that the majority of our progress as a species has been as a result of "figuring out how to get machines/animals to do our work (labor) for us.", then you're saying that the conservation of human effort leads directly to greater societal wealth.


I've just been reviewing the thread to see where the conversational "disconnects" are. Were you genuinely unaware of having made this statement? Are were you being evasive as I contended?

[INTelliJent]

	Originally Posted by Clueless To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You said it right here: You see, if you're saying that the majority of our progress as a species has been as a result of "figuring out how to get machines/animals to do our work (labor) for us.", then you're saying that the conservation of human effort leads directly to greater societal wealth.

I knew I said what you quoted. Show me where getting something else to do certain labor means I use the empty time to do nothing?

It is generally accepted that people are "busier than ever". I disagree with this. We merely can get more done in the same amount of time because of improved tools.

Sure, because of the washing machine, no one has to spend all day washing clothes. This doesn't mean I automatically start sitting around doing nothing all day. Even if I did, I would be no more wealthy (materially speaking) than if I washed by hand.

[Clueless]

	Originally Posted by INTelliJent To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I knew I said what you quoted. Show me where getting something else to do certain labor means I use the empty time to do nothing?

I don't understand this question. Such a conclusion is inconsistent with my ideas.

	Originally Posted by INTelliJent To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It is generally accepted that people are "busier than ever". I disagree with this. We merely can get more done in the same amount of time because of improved tools.

My point has been that progress comes from the continual gains in efficiency, because such gains result in availability of effort to be directed elsewhere.

	Originally Posted by INTelliJent To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Sure, because of the washing machine, no one has to spend all day washing clothes. This doesn't mean I automatically start sitting around doing nothing all day. Even if I did, I would be no more wealthy (materially speaking) than if I washed by hand.

Again, don't understand your point because you're now arguing what I've been arguing all along.

[INTelliJent]

	Originally Posted by Clueless To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I don't understand this question. Such a conclusion is inconsistent with my ideas. My point has been that progress comes from the continual gains in efficiency, because such gains result in availability of effort to be directed elsewhere. Again, don't understand your point because you're now arguing what I've been arguing all along.

If this is indeed your belief, your arguments do not make this apparent. The constant focus on human effort, which is unqualifiable and therefore unquantifiable excludes all other sorts of labor, and how minimizing the human element in the actual production leads to greater wealth, not increasing it.

Your arguments have overwhelmingly left the impression that you consider technological advances damaging to the human condition because of the decreased requirement for direct human labor involved in any one particular facet, thereby reducing the need for humans in general.

If this is merely a disconnect in understanding on this aspect, I feel I can speak for most of the people posting in this thread that we saw nothing to indicate otherwise.

[Clueless]

Originally Posted by INTelliJent To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

If this is indeed your belief, your arguments do not make this apparent. The constant focus on human effort, which is unqualifiable and therefore unquantifiable excludes all other sorts of labor, and how minimizing the human element in the actual production leads to greater wealth, not increasing it. Your arguments have overwhelmingly left the impression that you consider technological advances damaging to the human condition because of the decreased requirement for direct human labor involved in any one particular facet, thereby reducing the need for humans in general. If this is merely a disconnect in understanding on this aspect, I feel I can speak for most of the people posting in this thread that we saw nothing to indicate otherwise.

It was never my intention to convey that sort of idea. To value the employment of human effort is to value individual rights and liberties. The base distinction has to become one of contributors versus non-contributors. Non contribution must become a personal choice as opposed to a structural design. If this ever were to happen human progress would achieve "overdrive". But it can't happen so long as the gains in efficiency are inequitably distributed and therefore sequestered. The market will never have an accurate representation of demand under these circumstances. Inequality is necessary to satisfy the human condition, but an exceptional level of inequality is counterproductive.