representation of capitalism
Steven Mathers
Here is a view of capitalism that looks at it from a broad perspective
rather than from the level of the individual. Im not sure if it is
a reasonable representation, but it makes sense to me.
Lets look at a graph with a vertical axis of wealth(power) and a
horizontal axis of numbers of people. The vertical axis probably
should be exponential rather than linear.
wealth
^
|
|\
| \
| \
| \
| \
| \
| \
| \
| \
| \
| \
| \
| \
+---------------------------> numbers of people
This is the way a capitalist society must look in general form. If we
take the world view, you will have the botom of the pyramid made up of a
large percentage of the people living in the third world, and some of
the poorest people from Western nations, and then up through the
peasant farmers and blue collar workers then the Western middle class,
upper class and finally the mega rich. Note that a large proportion of
the triangle is made up of the third world. Only the toppish bit has
many people from Western societies in it, even the realtively poor
ones.
Now the individual motes in this pyramid (us) have the ability to rise
up within it, even though there is considerable pressure at
various altitudes to prevent it. I think the two main pressure barriers
are at the level where the desperately poor third world level attempts
to rise up to lower/middle class, and where the lower/middle class
attempts to rise to righ/mega rich levels. There are only so many
people who can actually be in the top part of the pyramid at any one
time. Individuals may have the freedom to move up, but common sense
dictates that most must fail. There is only so much wealth and
resources to go around. The majority at the bottom must support the rest.
I think the area under the graph expands with population growth and when
pyramid as high and narrow as possible, but it still remains a pyramid.
As technology advances, the actual level of poverty for the third world
may rise. This will not affect the shape of the graph, it will merely
shift it upwards by a small amount on the vertical axis. This will
represent the slow, painful and horrible (for most of the individuals
concerned) rise of the third world into industrialized nations capable
of supplying cheap manufactured goods to the rest of the pyramid,
rather than just their natural resources.
I hope this helps people grasp the fundamental concept of capitalism,
and if anyone can point out why this is not a valid representation, I
would be pleased to hear it.
Steve Mathers
s.ma...@trl.oz.au
--------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
Steven Mathers |
s.ma...@trl.oz.au |
--------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
Mark O. Wilson
|This is the way a capitalist society must look in general form. If we
This is the way all societies look. No need to limit your definitions to
capitalism.
|Now the individual motes in this pyramid (us) have the ability to rise
|up within it, even though there is considerable pressure at
|various altitudes to prevent it. I think the two main pressure barriers
|are at the level where the desperately poor third world level attempts
|to rise up to lower/middle class, and where the lower/middle class
|attempts to rise to righ/mega rich levels.
What are these pressures?
|There are only so many
|people who can actually be in the top part of the pyramid at any one
|time.
Please support this assertion.
|Individuals may have the freedom to move up, but common sense
|dictates that most must fail. There is only so much wealth and
|resources to go around.
The fallacy here is your claim that there is only so much wealth to
go around. Wealth is being created all of the time.
|The majority at the bottom must support the rest.
Are you trying to claim that those on top do nothing to support themselves?
|I think the area under the graph expands with population growth and when
|pyramid as high and narrow as possible, but it still remains a pyramid.
The reason it remains a pyramid is that there are only people with the ability
and the drive to become rich.
|As technology advances, the actual level of poverty for the third world
|may rise.
Recent history does not bear this out.
--
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark....@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
John R. Moore
>Lets look at a graph with a vertical axis of wealth(power) and a
>horizontal axis of numbers of people. The vertical axis probably
>should be exponential rather than linear.
>wealth
>^
>|
>|\
>| \
>| \
>| \
>| \
>| \
>| \
>| \
>| \
>| \
>| \
>| \
>| \
>+---------------------------> numbers of people
>This is the way a capitalist society must look in general form. If we
Take the word "capitalist" and the above sentence would be more true.
>I think the area under the graph expands with population growth and when
>pyramid as high and narrow as possible, but it still remains a pyramid.
It also expands with technological progress, and with capital investment.
But, it appears to be the nature of human society that some people will
make bigger decisions (ie power or wealth) than others. Not only that, it
is IMHO a GOOD THING.
>As technology advances, the actual level of poverty for the third world
>may rise. This will not affect the shape of the graph, it will merely
>shift it upwards by a small amount on the vertical axis. This will
>represent the slow, painful and horrible (for most of the individuals
>concerned) rise of the third world into industrialized nations capable
>of supplying cheap manufactured goods to the rest of the pyramid,
>rather than just their natural resources.
>I hope this helps people grasp the fundamental concept of capitalism,
>and if anyone can point out why this is not a valid representation, I
>would be pleased to hear it.
See above. It misses the point entirely.
|\
| \
| \
| ---------\
| \------------------\
| \
| \
| \
--
DISCLAIMER: These views are mine alone, and do not reflect my employer's!
John Moore 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253 USA (602-951-9326)
jo...@anasazi.com Amateur call:NJ7E Civil Air Patrol:Thunderbird 381
- - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
- - - "It is better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six." - - -
Richard Foy
>
>Here is a view of capitalism that looks at it from a broad perspective
>rather than from the level of the individual. Im not sure if it is
>a reasonable representation, but it makes sense to me.
>
>Lets look at a graph with a vertical axis of wealth(power) and a
>horizontal axis of numbers of people. The vertical axis probably
>should be exponential rather than linear.
>
>
>Now the individual motes in this pyramid (us) have the ability to rise
>up within it, even though there is considerable pressure at
>various altitudes to prevent it. I think the two main pressure barriers
>are at the level where the desperately poor third world level attempts
>to rise up to lower/middle class, and where the lower/middle class
>attempts to rise to righ/mega rich levels. There are only so many
>people who can actually be in the top part of the pyramid at any one
>time. Individuals may have the freedom to move up, but common sense
>dictates that most must fail. There is only so much wealth and
>resources to go around. The majority at the bottom must support the rest.
>
>
>I hope this helps people grasp the fundamental concept of capitalism,
>and if anyone can point out why this is not a valid representation, I
>would be pleased to hear it.
>
>Steve Mathers
I think that this is a very interesting way to look at capitalism.
You discuss particular barriers from one class to another. I think that
the difficulty of rising does not have any discrete points to it.
The reason is that I don't think there are any sharp lines between
different classes.
I also wonder if, with the wealth axis is eponential, the difficulty of
moving up is any different from one point to another. That is is it more,
less or equally as difficult to increase ones income by at factor of 10
when ones yearly income is $1000 as it is at $1,000,000? Tha answer is not
at all clear to me.
It perhaps would also be interesting to think of the probability of moving
down on the scale.
--
rf...@netcom.com
Richard Foy
Redondo Beach CA
Jay Shorten
I think the two main pressure barriers
>|are at the level where the desperately poor third world level attempts
>|to rise up to lower/middle class, and where the lower/middle class
>|attempts to rise to righ/mega rich levels.
>
>What are these pressures?
The pressure of those above to remain above and not be displaced. There is
also the barrier of ability (i.e. lack of it.)
>|There are only so many
>|people who can actually be in the top part of the pyramid at any one
>|time.
>
>Please support this assertion.
How can it be otherwise?
>|Individuals may have the freedom to move up, but common sense
>|dictates that most must fail. There is only so much wealth and
>|resources to go around.
>
>The fallacy here is your claim that there is only so much wealth to
>go around. Wealth is being created all of the time.
...at the expense of someone else's wealth.
>|As technology advances, the actual level of poverty for the third world
>|may rise.
>
>Recent history does not bear this out.
Yes, the level of what is considered "poor" rises. (People compare
themselves with the First World, not with their ancestors.)
Jay Shorten
jsho...@julian.uwo.ca
Jay Shorten
>It also expands with technological progress, and with capital investment.
>But, it appears to be the nature of human society that some people will
>make bigger decisions (ie power or wealth) than others. Not only that, it
>is IMHO a GOOD THING.
What do you mean by "bigger decisions"? And why is it a good thing?
Jay Shorten
jsho...@julian.uwo.ca
Mark O. Wilson
|It perhaps would also be interesting to think of the probability of moving
|down on the scale.
I would think it is easier to move down than up.
Just ask Donald Trump or the Hunt brothers.
John R. Moore
Bigger decisions meaning decisions that influence more human activity.
And it's a good thing because such decisions require specialization in
many cases. If everyone voted on everything:
(1) we would have a tremendous amount of ignorant voting going on
(2) we wouldn't have time to do anything else
Capitalism allows people to vote with dollars. Some people collect more of
them, or are put in a position to influence more of them, than others. The
beauty of capitalism is that, ON THE AVERAGE, it naturally selects those
most (or at least more) capable of making good decisions.
--
DISCLAIMER: These views are mine alone, and do not reflect my employer's!
John Moore 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253 USA (602-951-9326)
jo...@anasazi.com Amateur call:NJ7E Civil Air Patrol:Thunderbird 381
"Only a planned economy can make full use of a nation's resources" - A. Hitler
Confiscation = "Contribution or Sacrifice" Tax = "Investment" - B. Clinton
Mark O. Wilson
|In article <CG8sF...@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwi...@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark O. Wilson) writes:
| I think the two main pressure barriers
|>|are at the level where the desperately poor third world level attempts
|>|to rise up to lower/middle class, and where the lower/middle class
|>|attempts to rise to righ/mega rich levels.
|>
|>What are these pressures?
|The pressure of those above to remain above and not be displaced.
How the people above apply this pressure?
|There is also the barrier of ability (i.e. lack of it.)
This is a personal restriction, not a structural one.
|>|There are only so many
|>|people who can actually be in the top part of the pyramid at any one
|>|time.
|>
|>Please support this assertion.
|How can it be otherwise?
So when Donald Trump went from being an also ran to a mega-rich person,
somebody else who used to be mega-rich in turn became an also ran.
You seem to be implying that in order for someone to enter the top
brackets, they have to push somebody else out.
|>|Individuals may have the freedom to move up, but common sense
|>|dictates that most must fail. There is only so much wealth and
|>|resources to go around.
|>
|>The fallacy here is your claim that there is only so much wealth to
|>go around. Wealth is being created all of the time.
|...at the expense of someone else's wealth.
Totally false. I take it that you have absolutely no knowledge of
economics.
|>|As technology advances, the actual level of poverty for the third world
|>|may rise.
|>
|>Recent history does not bear this out.
|Yes, the level of what is considered "poor" rises. (People compare
|themselves with the First World, not with their ancestors.)
Are you saying that the poverty line rises?
I thought you were implying that the number of poor rises.
Steven Mathers
|>
|> This is the way all societies look. No need to limit your definitions to
|> capitalism.
Not true. Authoritarian socialism/communism and Feudal states would
look more like a very wide flat rectangle with a relatively small lump
of the privelleged on top. The rectangular section of the huge lower
class may have a higher level of wealth than the lowest
classes of the capitalist traingle, however.
|>
|> |Now the individual motes in this pyramid (us) have the ability to rise
|> |up within it, even though there is considerable pressure at
|> |various altitudes to prevent it. I think the two main pressure barriers
|> |are at the level where the desperately poor third world level attempts
|> |to rise up to lower/middle class, and where the lower/middle class
|> |attempts to rise to righ/mega rich levels.
|>
|> What are these pressures?
|>
|> |There are only so many
|> |people who can actually be in the top part of the pyramid at any one
|> |time.
|>
|> Please support this assertion.
|>
|> |Individuals may have the freedom to move up, but common sense
|> |dictates that most must fail. There is only so much wealth and
|> |resources to go around.
|>
|> The fallacy here is your claim that there is only so much wealth to
|> go around. Wealth is being created all of the time.
|>
|> |The majority at the bottom must support the rest.
|>
|> Are you trying to claim that those on top do nothing to support themselves?
|>
OK, all of these questions are related I think, so I will deal with them
all at once. Ill start with a question of my own. Do you think it is
possible that every person in the world could have a big house on a
largish piece of land, eat well enough to have to watch their weight and
own the scads of material possesions that we we in Western society take
for granted? Probably not. How about a huge mansion, 4 cars, a yacht and
beef for lunch and dinner? No way.For the economies of Western societies to be
strong, cheap labour and resources must be available in large amounts.
You dont get cheap labour and resources from countries with high
standards of living. How can the big companies make large profits if
their workers and demand big wages and resources cost a lot?
Much of the US `defense of freedom` around the
world is purely self interest in making sure that various third world
countries keep up the flow neccessary to sustain Western economies.
Thats why we dont give a rat's arse about instability and human rights
abuses in such places as Tibet, East Timor and the Balkans. Kuwait and
countries in Indochina and Latin America on the other hand, are top
priority for the reasons stated above.
|> |I think the area under the graph expands with population growth and when
|> |pyramid as high and narrow as possible, but it still remains a pyramid.
> The reason it remains a pyramid is that there are only people with the ability
|> and the drive to become rich.
Nope, its a triangle because it is physically impossible for a
capitalist society to look any other way. At any given moment there are
only so many resources and so much wealth to go around. Think of that
as the area under the graph. Now if a minority is to have a hell of a
lot more than the majority, the shape is going to be a triangle. Sure,
wealth may grow and wealth may shrink -- the area of the traingle gets
larger and smaller -- but the shape doesn't change. The people at the
top will loose out if the shape changes, and they hold the power to make
sure that it doesn't. If everyone at the bottom starts to move up, then
conservation of (whatever) demands that the top must fall . The
pressure from the top to prevent this from happening is guarenteed.
What do you think _conservative_ political parties are all about? Who
supports conservative parties? Large property owners and the well-off
of course! (and remember, well-off is relative. If you look at the
whole triangle, well-off is middle class and up)
|>
|> |As technology advances, the actual level of poverty for the third world
|> |may rise.
|>
|> Recent history does not bear this out.
Please explain?
Steve Mathers
s.ma...@trl.oz.au
Richard Foy
...
>
>Capitalism allows people to vote with dollars. Some people collect more of
>them, or are put in a position to influence more of them, than others. The
>beauty of capitalism is that, ON THE AVERAGE, it naturally selects those
>most (or at least more) capable of making good decisions.
You are only partially correct. It naturally selects those most capable of
making good decisions *about making money.* If that is the only value in
a society then you are right.
I want a society that has other values i.e., one that does not tolerate
murder, violence, arson, child molestation. The ability deal with these
sorts or things is not necessarily correlated with the ability to make
money. In fact it may be inversely correlated!
John R. Moore
>In article <1993Nov10....@anasazi.com> jo...@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
>...
>>
>>Capitalism allows people to vote with dollars. Some people collect more of
>>them, or are put in a position to influence more of them, than others. The
>>beauty of capitalism is that, ON THE AVERAGE, it naturally selects those
>>most (or at least more) capable of making good decisions.
>You are only partially correct. It naturally selects those most capable of
>making good decisions *about making money.* If that is the only value in
>a society then you are right.
But making money (legally, which is what the discussion is about) means
doing that that cause other people to VOLUNTARILY give their money to you. That
seems fairly virtuous to me.
>I want a society that has other values i.e., one that does not tolerate
>murder, violence, arson, child molestation. The ability deal with these
>sorts or things is not necessarily correlated with the ability to make
>money. In fact it may be inversely correlated!
But those values are moral values, not economic values. I agree, I want those
values too, but what does that have to do with capitalism? Oh, and I don't
believe for a second that that ability to make money makes one less moral.
I know a lot of millionaires, and I find almost all of them to be quite
moral (ie, the care about other humans, they have compassion, they feel it
is wrong to steal, etc). Interestingly, the one I know who is the least moral
is a liberal supporter of Clinton.
--
DISCLAIMER: These views are mine alone, and do not reflect my employer's!
John Moore 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253 USA (602-951-9326)
jo...@anasazi.com Amateur call:NJ7E Civil Air Patrol:Thunderbird 381
Get into Ham Radio today! Morse Code no longer needed! It's a hobby, a sport, a
convenience, a technical challenge, a public service. Go rec.radio.amateur.misc
Lizard
Conservatives and the poor support the Liberals" isn't
exactly true. The rich can afford to be
"generous"...what's a .75 cent gas tax to Bill Gates? In
most polls, the working class goes to the Republicans, and
the educated/elite goes to the Democrats. The wealthy
Northeast and West Coast states usually veer left;the
poorer south and midwest states veer right.
Of course, you could argue that the Dems are just as
"conservative" (in the negative sense) as the Repubs, and
I wouldn't disagree.
(The '92 election results were marginally atypical, but
that's because NO ONE wanted George Bush in office)
--
"First you're born. Then you die. Then they throw dirt in
your face. Then the worms eat you. Be grateful it happens
in that order.":Solomon Short
"Evolution Doesn't Take Prisoners":Lizard
--
Richard Foy
>rf...@netcom.com (Richard Foy) writes:
>
>>In article <1993Nov10....@anasazi.com> jo...@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
>>...
>>>
>>>Capitalism allows people to vote with dollars. Some people collect more of
>>>them, or are put in a position to influence more of them, than others. The
>>>beauty of capitalism is that, ON THE AVERAGE, it naturally selects those
>>>most (or at least more) capable of making good decisions.
>
>
>>You are only partially correct. It naturally selects those most capable of
>>making good decisions *about making money.* If that is the only value in
>>a society then you are right.
>
>But making money (legally, which is what the discussion is about) means
>doing that that cause other people to VOLUNTARILY give their money to you. That
>seems fairly virtuous to me.
>
Gosh. Did I misunderstand? I thought the discussion was about selecting the
best people to lead the nation.
>>I want a society that has other values i.e., one that does not tolerate
>>murder, violence, arson, child molestation. The ability deal with these
>>sorts or things is not necessarily correlated with the ability to make
>>money. In fact it may be inversely correlated!
>But those values are moral values, not economic values. I agree, I want those
>values too, but what does that have to do with capitalism? Oh, and I don't
>believe for a second that that ability to make money makes one less moral.
But your comment was that people who are good an making money are good
decision makers. I contend taht the ability to make money is not all
correlated with the ability to solve problems of crime etc.
No the ability to make money does not make one less moral. However, one who
is immoral is not as limited in his/her actions which may be used to make
money.
One might think of Amabassador Kennedy, Howard Hughes, Charles Keating,
Mikeal Milikan, and to understand how the ability to make money is enhanced
by a willingnesss to bend the rules.
>I know a lot of millionaires, and I find almost all of them to be quite
>moral (ie, the care about other humans, they have compassion, they feel it
>is wrong to steal, etc). Interestingly, the one I know who is the least moral
>is a liberal supporter of Clintton.
Do they have compassion for the homeless? Do they feel it is wrong to use
missleading advertizing?
I suspect that your sample is not random. I could say almost exacly the
opposite thing about the high income people I know and have known.
misleading advertizing?
The high income people I know, and have known, do not fit a description
of highly moral except in a limited sense. For example I have know some
VPs of major companies who thought nothing of hireing the services of call
girls to faciliate their marketing objectives.
John R. Moore
>In article <1993Nov13.2...@anasazi.com> jo...@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
>>rf...@netcom.com (Richard Foy) writes:
>>
>>>In article <1993Nov10....@anasazi.com> jo...@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
>>>...
>>>>
>>>>Capitalism allows people to vote with dollars. Some people collect more of
>>>>them, or are put in a position to influence more of them, than others. The
>>>>beauty of capitalism is that, ON THE AVERAGE, it naturally selects those
>>>>most (or at least more) capable of making good decisions.
>>
>>
>>>You are only partially correct. It naturally selects those most capable of
>>>making good decisions *about making money.* If that is the only value in
>>>a society then you are right.
>>
>>But making money (legally, which is what the discussion is about) means
>>doing that that cause other people to VOLUNTARILY give their money to you. That
>>seems fairly virtuous to me.
>>
>Gosh. Did I misunderstand? I thought the discussion was about selecting the
>best people to lead the nation.
Yes, you misunderstood. We are talking about capitalism, and the decisionmakers
in capitalism are businessmen. That does not mean that we have no political
system - just that it wasn't in the realm of discussion.
>But your comment was that people who are good an making money are good
>decision makers. I contend taht the ability to make money is not all
>correlated with the ability to solve problems of crime etc.
>No the ability to make money does not make one less moral. However, one who
>is immoral is not as limited in his/her actions which may be used to make
>money.
>One might think of Amabassador Kennedy, Howard Hughes, Charles Keating,
>Mikeal Milikan, and to understand how the ability to make money is enhanced
>by a willingnesss to bend the rules.
As I have said before, I know a number of millionaires and they didn't
get their money by cheating.
>>I know a lot of millionaires, and I find almost all of them to be quite
>>moral (ie, the care about other humans, they have compassion, they feel it
>>is wrong to steal, etc). Interestingly, the one I know who is the least moral
>>is a liberal supporter of Clintton.
>Do they have compassion for the homeless? Do they feel it is wrong to use
>missleading advertizing?
Yes and yes.
>I suspect that your sample is not random. I could say almost exacly the
>opposite thing about the high income people I know and have known.
Of course it's not random. It is mostly people I encounter in the computer
services business. I do know one very wealthy person who is quite willing
to bend the rules, and interestingly enough he is a liberal who gives
huge amounts of money to democratic candidates!
>misleading advertizing?
You asked that already.
>The high income people I know, and have known, do not fit a description
>of highly moral except in a limited sense. For example I have know some
>VPs of major companies who thought nothing of hireing the services of call
>girls to faciliate their marketing objectives.
A lot of people on the net would not consider that immoral. I don't like
it but it isn't high on my list of crimes. Who is the victim??
--
DISCLAIMER: These views are mine alone, and do not reflect my employer's!
John Moore 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253 USA (602-951-9326)
jo...@anasazi.com Amateur call:NJ7E Civil Air Patrol:Thunderbird 381
This is a newer version of the memetic .signature infection. Now that's an
idea. Copy it into your .signature today!
D. Anton Sherwood
>rf...@netcom.com (Richard Foy) writes:
>>One might think of Amabassador Kennedy, Howard Hughes, Charles Keating,
>>Mikeal Milikan, and to understand how the ability to make money is enhanced
>>by a willingnesss to bend the rules.
In a broad sense (which I am sure Foy did not mean), "bending the rules"
is how all progress is made. If you'll forgive the digression....
>>The high income people I know, and have known, do not fit a description
>>of highly moral except in a limited sense. For example I have know some
>>VPs of major companies who thought nothing of hireing the services of call
>>girls to faciliate their marketing objectives.
. . . and so providing work to women who, on average,
do not come from the privileged classes.
>A lot of people on the net would not consider that immoral. I don't like
>it but it isn't high on my list of crimes. Who is the victim??
If the man who receives the call-girl's services is acting with other
people's money, then those other people may be victims of that man's
abuse of discretion -- he was hired to buy the best product, not the
product whose marketing manager hires the sexiest girls.
--
Banding Apart to Take Uncontrol!
Anton Sherwood *\\* +1 415 267 0685 *\\* DAS...@netcom.com
"Don't forget, your mind only *simulates* logic." --Glen C. Perkins
D. Anton Sherwood
>
>. Do you think it is
>possible that every person in the world could have a big house on a
>largish piece of land, eat well enough to have to watch their weight and
>own the scads of material possesions that we we in Western society take
>for granted? Probably not.
I once heard it said that if everyone in the world had a luxury condo in
a hundred-storey building, these high-rises would fill Manhattan Island;
and if everyone in the world had a house on a typical American suburban
lot, they would fill Texas.
>.For the economies of Western societies to be
>strong, cheap labour and resources must be available in large amounts.
>You dont get cheap labour and resources from countries with high
>standards of living. How can the big companies make large profits if
>their workers and demand big wages and resources cost a lot?
By adding lots of value to the end product. The usual word for
measuring this added value is "productivity".
>Much of the US `defense of freedom` around the
>world is purely self interest in making sure that various third world
>countries keep up the flow neccessary to sustain Western economies.
That's what the hawks say it's for. But it's a lie. To pick the latest
example (lame though it is for my purpose), if Saddam held Kuwait would
he stop selling oil? Hardly.
>larger and smaller -- but the shape doesn't change. The people at the
>top will loose out if the shape changes, and they hold the power to make
>sure that it doesn't. If everyone at the bottom starts to move up, then
>conservation of (whatever) demands that the top must fall . The
>pressure from the top to prevent this from happening is guarenteed.
I liked how Ludwig von Mises put it in "The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality":
When a mediocre person inherits a place on the top of the heap, or an
able but aging person (Lee Iacocca?) reaches the top late in life, he
wants the heap to stop moving, because he knows he is not nimble enough
to stay on top without help. Thus such people turn to government for
legislation to put the market in a straitjacket.
D. Anton Sherwood
>In article <CG8sF...@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwi...@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark O. Wilson) writes:
>
>>|Individuals may have the freedom to move up, but common sense
>>|dictates that most must fail. There is only so much wealth and
>>|resources to go around.
>>
>>The fallacy here is your claim that there is only so much wealth to
>>go around. Wealth is being created all of the time.
>
>...at the expense of someone else's wealth.
This is the central fallacy of pseudo-economics.
Suppose I hire you to build me a bookshelf.
You give up some leisure and energy, and get some money.
I give up some money and lumber, and get a bookshelf,
which is worth more to me than the raw lumber was.
According to you, one of us must be worse off. Which? Why?
And why did one of us agree to a transaction that made him poorer?
D. Anton Sherwood
>
>I want a society that has other values i.e., one that does not tolerate
>murder, violence, arson, child molestation. The ability deal with these
>sorts or things is not necessarily correlated with the ability to make
>money. In fact it may be inversely correlated!
We hire detectives to deter crime. We buy guns to defend ourselves.
Effective detectives and skilled gunsmiths thus have ability to make
money.
Those who have the most to spend are (in a free market) those who have
shown ability to provide what many people want -- whatever that is.
Money is not an abstraction -- it is intimately tied to our desires.
hegemon
I have a paper I am working on for my Normative Theories of
Law class and would like some input. I am arguing for a libertarian
legal system and against utilitarianism and liberalism (esp. the kind
advocated by John Rawls of Harvard).
Can anyone help me? Please post or email me.
John Hegemon
bc8...@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu
Mark O. Wilson
|In article <1993Nov16.0...@anasazi.com> jo...@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
|>A lot of people on the net would not consider that immoral. I don't like
|>it but it isn't high on my list of crimes. Who is the victim??
|If the man who receives the call-girl's services is acting with other
|people's money, then those other people may be victims of that man's
|abuse of discretion -- he was hired to buy the best product, not the
|product whose marketing manager hires the sexiest girls.
Agreed that the buyer is misusing his position, and if I were a manager,
and I found out that one of my people were doing this they would be out
of a job.
But I believe the point John was trying to make, is influencing buyers
by having the sexiest call girls any worse than influencing them by having
the best buffet spread, the most booze, or the fanciest trinkets?
Richard Foy
>
>. . . and so providing work to women who, on average,
>do not come from the privileged classes.
I know of one case where the services were purchased, where the recipient
was violent with the girl. She of course has no recourse because the
service she agreed to provide, sex, not s&m, is illegal.
Thus both the purchaser and the receiver of the services would be doing
much more for the call girls if they publicly worked to legalize
prostitution.
>
>>A lot of people on the net would not consider that immoral. I don't like
>>it but it isn't high on my list of crimes. Who is the victim??
It is high on my list of crimes to eliminate by leagalizing it, thus freeing
a significant number of police to protect the peoiple from crimes where there
is a victim.
>
>If the man who receives the call-girl's services is acting with other
>people's money, then those other people may be victims of that man's
>abuse of discretion -- he was hired to buy the best product, not the
>product whose marketing manager hires the sexiest girls.
In all of the cases that I know about the both the man receiving the
services and the man paying for them were dealing with other peoples
money, either shareholders or taxpayers. You don't thing a marketing
man would use his own money do you?
Richard Foy
>Effective detectives and skilled gunsmiths thus have ability to make
>money.
>
However, it isn't working. Perhaps if we decided how to deal with crime
by some other means than the $ ballot box, we would have less of it.
>Those who have the most to spend are (in a free market) those who have
>shown ability to provide what many people want -- whatever that is.
>Money is not an abstraction -- it is intimately tied to our desires.
>--
I guess I don't understand what this has to do with preventing crime.
Richard Foy
>
>That's what the hawks say it's for. But it's a lie. To pick the latest
>example (lame though it is for my purpose), if Saddam held Kuwait would
>he stop selling oil? Hardly.
>
Yes he would have kept selling oil. However, he might have wanted to,
and been able to, sell it for a higher price thus cutting into the
oil company profits. If he had taken over Saudia Arabia he surely
would have been able to do this.
Charles Board P025
>
> Those who have the most to spend are (in a free market) those who have
> shown ability to provide what many people want -- whatever that is.
Or, more commonly, the ability to get people to want the useless items
they provide.
Roger Lewis
>Those who have the most to spend are (in a free market) those who have
>shown ability to provide what many people want -- whatever that is.
Those who have the most to spend are also composed of:
a) the most successful thieves
b) the most successful liars and cheaters in business
c) those who can locate the least savvy and most unsophisticated consumers
d) those who sell products that are chemically addictive
e) those who excel at overworking and underpaying their employees
f) those who can achieve monopolies and near monoploies. (It may be a free
market, but if one person owns 95% of the oil deposits....).
and those who have a host of other not so gallant or socially positive
behaviors and skills... as well as those who HAVE shown ability to provide
what many people want.
Any Propertarian society is still going to have thieves, cheats, and liars.
Some will be very successful and join that class that has the most to spend.
Some of us in alt.society.anarchy feel that they already comprise the vast
majority of that class.
--
rle...@isi.edu Power to the People!
Harris Wulfson
Right on! This is exactly what J.K. Galbraith argues: that consumer sovereignty
is a myth in a society dominated by the giant corporation.
-Harris
Bill Gray
> ...
> Right on! This is exactly what J.K. Galbraith argues: that consumer
That of course, is why the Edsel was such a resounding success.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Gray UUCP: ...!uunet!inel.gov!whg
Idaho National Engineering Lab Internet: w...@inel.gov
Disclaimer: I deny everything.
Jay Shorten
>Suppose I hire you to build me a bookshelf.
>You give up some leisure and energy, and get some money.
>I give up some money and lumber, and get a bookshelf,
>which is worth more to me than the raw lumber was.
>
>According to you, one of us must be worse off. Which? Why?
>And why did one of us agree to a transaction that made him poorer?
You are worse off.
1. Your money is gone. You could not force me to work for nothing (ie
to be your slave--in which case *I* would be worse off), but had to give up
something (money) in return for my labour.
2. You made yourself dependent on me. I could have taken the money and
run off, leaving you with no money. Or I could have made an inferior
product and run off, leaving you with no money, no lumber, and no
bookshelf. You can't trust me.
You agreed to the transaction out of your convenience, either because:
1. You can build a bookshelf, but it is inconvenient for you do so. So you
asked me to do the work for you, but then you lost by making yourself
dependent on me. Instead you should have done the work yourself and kept
the bookshelf *and* the money.
2. You can't build a bookshelf. So you asked me to make one for you, but
again you lost by making yourself dependent on me. Instead you should have
been satisfied with the lumber you had, realized that a bookshelf is just
a foolish dream, stopped dreaming about it, and kept the money.
Jay Shorten
jsho...@julian.uwo.ca
morpheus
|> I once heard it said that if everyone in the world had a luxury condo in
|> a hundred-storey building, these high-rises would fill Manhattan Island;
|> and if everyone in the world had a house on a typical American suburban
|> lot, they would fill Texas.
I don't have any better figures, but this sounds like bullshit to me.
Come on, 5 billion people on manhattan island? "Only" 8 million or
so people live in all five boroughs of NYC together and it's kinda
crowded already...
--
morp...@entropy.linet.org Non serviam!
"It's not like I'm using, it's like my body's developed
this massive drug deficiency." - Neuromancer
John R. Moore
In article <2cef03$o...@darkstar.isi.edu> rle...@darkstar.isi.edu (Roger Lewis) writes:
>In article <dasherCG...@netcom.com> das...@netcom.com (D. Anton Sherwood) writes:
>
>>Those who have the most to spend are (in a free market) those who have
>>shown ability to provide what many people want -- whatever that is.
>
>Those who have the most to spend are also composed of:
>a) the most successful thieves
We have laws to prevent that
>b) the most successful liars and cheaters in business
Not usually true. Most businessmen won't do business with liars and cheaters.
I have seen lots of very smooth liars and cheaters in business, and they
usually fall right on their faces.
>c) those who can locate the least savvy and most unsophisticated consumers
Nope. Those consumers don't have enough money. It is those who can provide
the most valuable products to the sophisticated and wealthy consumers.
>d) those who sell products that are chemically addictive
This one I agree with.
>e) those who excel at overworking and underpaying their employees
Nope. It is often those who overwork and underpay THEMSELVES. As any manager
knows, those who overwork and underpay their employees normally get
screwed by their employees. Ross Perot, Bill Gates and Larry Ellison may
make their employees work hard, but they reward those who do well
and they also provide value to their customers.
>f) those who can achieve monopolies and near monoploies. (It may be a free
> market, but if one person owns 95% of the oil deposits....).
We have laws against that also.
>and those who have a host of other not so gallant or socially positive
>behaviors and skills... as well as those who HAVE shown ability to provide
>what many people want.
How about rich hollywood movie stars? Who have THEY screwed?
>
How about those who can get liberal politicians to regulate their competitors
out of business? How about those who get rich by feeding off of liberal
government programs?
>Any Propertarian society is still going to have thieves, cheats, and liars.
Strike Propertarian and you statement is even more correct. Any society
is still going to have thieves, cheats and liars.
>Some will be very successful and join that class that has the most to spend.
>Some of us in alt.society.anarchy feel that they already comprise the vast
>majority of that class.
You are wrong, but then that's not surprising for anarchists.
John R. Moore
The myth is what Galbraith argues, not what he argues is a myth. Have you
ever participated in consumer product development for a giant corporation?
I have, and we certainly spent a great amount of effort to find out what
the consumers wanted - not to tell them what they want!
Sony and Casio have done very well by creating new things that people want,
not by creating new wants. Or do you call digital watches and Walkmen some
sort of evil capitalist creation?
--
DISCLAIMER: These views are mine alone, and do not reflect my employer's!
John Moore 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253 USA (602-951-9326)
jo...@anasazi.com Amateur call:NJ7E Civil Air Patrol:Thunderbird 381
- - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
- - Clinton: "Read my lips: We will bring utopia, at no cost to you!" - -
Lorraine Lee
>In article <dasherCG...@netcom.com> das...@netcom.com (D. Anton Sherwood) writes:
>
>>Suppose I hire you to build me a bookshelf.
>>You give up some leisure and energy, and get some money.
>>I give up some money and lumber, and get a bookshelf,
>>which is worth more to me than the raw lumber was.
>>
>>According to you, one of us must be worse off. Which? Why?
>>And why did one of us agree to a transaction that made him poorer?
>
>You are worse off.
>1. Your money is gone. You could not force me to work for nothing (ie
>to be your slave--in which case *I* would be worse off), but had to give up
>something (money) in return for my labour.
Tanstaafl.
>2. You made yourself dependent on me. I could have taken the money and
>run off, leaving you with no money. Or I could have made an inferior
>product and run off, leaving you with no money, no lumber, and no
>bookshelf. You can't trust me.
Anton could claim that the goods you deliver are of unacceptable quality and
refuse payment (the classic "work at home" scam). You can't trust him either.
Business starts with Risk.
>You agreed to the transaction out of your convenience, either because:
>1. You can build a bookshelf, but it is inconvenient for you do so. So you
>asked me to do the work for you, but then you lost by making yourself
>dependent on me. Instead you should have done the work yourself and kept
>the bookshelf *and* the money.
Why all this moralizing over what people -should- do? The fact that he -can-
build a bookshelf doesn't mean he -should-, and the fact that he hires someone
else to do it doesn't make him dependent. Whether you come out ahead by hiring
someone to make the bookshelf "out of convenience" depends on how much that
convenience is worth.
>2. You can't build a bookshelf. So you asked me to make one for you, but
>again you lost by making yourself dependent on me. Instead you should have
>been satisfied with the lumber you had, realized that a bookshelf is just
>a foolish dream, stopped dreaming about it, and kept the money.
Learning how to build a bookshelf costs time and money and probably whatever
materials go into the first few attempts. If the labor you pay for costs less
than that you still come out ahead.
DIY comes in varying degrees. I don't think there is any need for a blanket
statement along the lines of "someone who has the wood and the talent -should-
build their own bookshelf". Why not go a step further and mill your own
lumber? Or another and harvest your own timber? Once you've really Done It
Yurself and Saved bigtime, and have a bookshelf made -from scratch-, why read
books written by other people, when you can write your own? :-)
(now to flame the original poster, Mr. Sherwood)
You seem to be part of the chorus of people saying "look, nobody's holding a
gun to either of these people's heads, and obviously they both come out ahead,
and if they didn't they wouldn't have agreed to the transaction in the first
place etc. etc. etc."
OK, I'll buy that, BUT...
For a lot of us working stiffs, sure, working for peanuts beats working for
nothing, and even beats not having the opportunity to work. So you could say
that when we make an employment transaction (which, for the sake of argument,
includes an agreement not to participate in organized labor, an understanding
that my I'm to represent the company with conservative standards of dress and
grooming on company time and off, and a few waivers of my legal privacy rights
thrown in etc. etc. etc.) we "come out ahead" of where we'd be without making
the transaction. This is technically true, but a lot of us are tempted to
believe that we are somehow morally entitled to more and better choices than
the selection which actually exists. I.e. we don't ask ourselves if a
transaction makes us better off, using "nothing" as a baseline. We tend to use
what we think is reasonable as a baseline, and count anything we "agree to"
that falls short of that as a loss.
Jay was starting to get to a very valid point when he stated "you lost by
making yourself dependent on me", but didn't follow through on that.
Unless/until I get "established" enough in a trade/profession/career that
employeds need me more than I need them, I -will- be exploited. I can accept
this as a temporary condition, "paying my dues" so to speak. But I am very
skeptical that paying of hard dues and putting in the hard work will get me the
Independence that I want so badly. Observation tells me that the people who
successfully escape the tyrrany of working for someone else are not the most
productive, or the most skilled, or the ones who have paid the hardest dues.
(although people who accomplish those things rarely starve at least). They are
the ones who master what I think Donald Trump termed "the art of the deal". I
guess my personal economic agenda is to become independent without becoming a
huckster, like I'd rather beat them than join them. I feel a certain
solidarity with like-minded people so it becomes a political agenda. I've been
doing a lot of soul-searching lately as to whether my personal/political goals
are reasonable/realistic/etc.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Lee
Mark O. Wilson
|In article <dasherCG...@netcom.com>, das...@netcom.com (D. Anton Sherwood) writes:
||> I once heard it said that if everyone in the world had a luxury condo in
||> a hundred-storey building, these high-rises would fill Manhattan Island;
||> and if everyone in the world had a house on a typical American suburban
||> lot, they would fill Texas.
|I don't have any better figures, but this sounds like bullshit to me.
|Come on, 5 billion people on manhattan island? "Only" 8 million or
|so people live in all five boroughs of NYC together and it's kinda
|crowded already...
How many of them live in 100-storey high rises?
Richard Foy
>
>But I believe the point John was trying to make, is influencing buyers
>by having the sexiest call girls any worse than influencing them by having
>the best buffet spread, the most booze, or the fanciest trinkets?
>--
I thought John was trying to make the point that very corporate leaders
were moral.
And perhaps buying call girls may be worse thatn buffet, booze etc.
Clearly buying call girl services is illegal, the others may not be.
IMO both are an immoral way of conducting business, though they are
widely practiced.
Richard
Steven Mathers
|> >>|Individuals may have the freedom to move up, but common sense
|> >>|dictates that most must fail. There is only so much wealth and
|> >>|resources to go around.
|> >>
|> >>The fallacy here is your claim that there is only so much wealth to
|> >>go around. Wealth is being created all of the time.
|> >
|> >...at the expense of someone else's wealth.
|>
|> This is the central fallacy of pseudo-economics.
|>
|> Suppose I hire you to build me a bookshelf.
|> You give up some leisure and energy, and get some money.
|> I give up some money and lumber, and get a bookshelf,
|> which is worth more to me than the raw lumber was.
|>
|> According to you, one of us must be worse off. Which? Why?
|> And why did one of us agree to a transaction that made him poorer?
Looking at capitalism from this level and trying to prove a point is
like trying to demonstrate how an engine works by examining a part of it
with a microscope. This is surely psuedo-economics. I could also point
out to you that Madonna makes millions a year for her contribution to
society. Say she makes 200 times as much per year as a factory hand.
By your reckoning her contribution to society is 200 times as valuable?
Steve Mathers
s.ma...@trl.oz.au
Chris Auld
>Looking at capitalism from this level and trying to prove a point is
>like trying to demonstrate how an engine works by examining a part of it
>with a microscope. This is surely psuedo-economics. I could also point
>out to you that Madonna makes millions a year for her contribution to
>society. Say she makes 200 times as much per year as a factory hand.
>By your reckoning her contribution to society is 200 times as valuable?
Actually, the notion that voluntary exchange makes both parties better
off is not ``pseudo-economics'' at all, it's a fundamental insight of
economics going back to, at least, Adam Smith. In your example, Madonna's
contribution to society is, by the _only_ measure of productivity that is
valid, 200 times the factory hand's. Each of the people who bought one of
Madonna's albums, or one of her books, or a ticket to one of her shows, did
so because the value to them of that item was greater than the value of the
items foregone in its purchase. Madonna received a portion of the proceeds
comensurate with the value her name added to the product (actually,
probably somewhat _less_, as its likely she's exploited). Similarly, the
factory hand receives a portion of the proceeds from whatever he produces
commensurate with his input. If Madonna makes 200 times what he does, it's
because she has produced 200 times more value to consumers.
--
Chris Auld
Department of Economics
Queen's University at Kingston
au...@econ01.econ.queensu.ca
James F. Hranicky
Also, there are many factory hands, but only one Madonna (thank God!!!)
If there was only one factory hand, he would get paid quite a bit to crank out
stuff.
You will go a long way explaining how a human being works by looking at
DNA through a microscope....
There is nothing wrong with breaking something down into parts to get at how
it works -- the economy is a mass of transactions -- looking at one serves as
a starting point.
To do the same with an engine, one would not use a microscope, but simply break
it down into its components--crankshaft, pistons, rings, bearings, etc...
---------------
Jim Hranicky (j...@beach.cis.ufl.edu)
What better attire for the wolf, than the cloak of the sheep?
---------------
Gordon Fitch
of a political article, and here it is at last.
In article <1993Nov22.0...@trl.oz.au> s.ma...@trl.oz.au writes:
| |> >Looking at capitalism from this level and trying to prove a point is
| |> >like trying to demonstrate how an engine works by examining a part of it
| |> >with a microscope. This is surely psuedo-economics. I could also point
| |> >out to you that Madonna makes millions a year for her contribution to
| |> >society. Say she makes 200 times as much per year as a factory hand.
| |> >By your reckoning her contribution to society is 200 times as valuable?
au...@qed.uucp (Chris Auld) writes:
| |> Actually, the notion that voluntary exchange makes both parties better
| |> off is not ``pseudo-economics'' at all, it's a fundamental insight of
| |> economics going back to, at least, Adam Smith. In your example, Madonna's
| |> contribution to society is, by the _only_ measure of productivity that is
| |> valid, 200 times the factory hand's. Each of the people who bought one of
| |> Madonna's albums, or one of her books, or a ticket to one of her shows, did
| |> so because the value to them of that item was greater than the value of the
| |> items foregone in its purchase. Madonna received a portion of the proceeds
| |> comensurate with the value her name added to the product (actually,
| |> probably somewhat _less_, as its likely she's exploited). Similarly, the
| |> factory hand receives a portion of the proceeds from whatever he produces
| |> commensurate with his input. If Madonna makes 200 times what he does, it's
| |> because she has produced 200 times more value to consumers.
James F. Hranicky <j...@beach.cis.ufl.edu> wrote:
| Also, there are many factory hands, but only one Madonna (thank God!!!)
|
| If there was only one factory hand, he would get paid quite a bit to crank out
| stuff.
I think you're a bit off on this. If there were only one
factory hand, the industrial system wouldn't work, and the
factory hand, or rather, her labor, wouldn't be worth any
more than the next person's. The factory hand is part of a
structure that requires many factory hands. Madonna is part
of a structure that requires that there be one Madonna and a
huge supporting system called the music industry. The way in
which Madonna has made as much money out of it as she has is
by being a very hard-nosed businesswoman as well as an
energetic and intelligent worker and an astute artist who
perceived and supplied a widespread need for the projection
of a cold, artificial sexuality. There are plenty of hard
blond singers with nifty bodies who never make it out of
local clubs, if they get that far; they don't know how to
manipulate the system. The key to financial success (in
the present system) is good manipulation, not uniqueness or
even rarity.
There are some additional complexities, such as the spending
of money in order to participate vicariously in the success
of the "Material Girl" (even to one's own detriment), and the
difference in utility between the factory hand's dollar and
the same dollar in Madonna's bank account, but these subtle
considerations may be too much for the Net. We'll see.
| You will go a long way explaining how a human being works by looking at
| DNA through a microscope....
I think you have to start with a human being to make DNA
meaningful, though.
| There is nothing wrong with breaking something down into parts to get at how
| it works -- the economy is a mass of transactions -- looking at one serves as
| a starting point.
|
| To do the same with an engine, one would not use a microscope, but simply break
| it down into its components--crankshaft, pistons, rings, bearings, etc...
Agreed -- once you have the engine as a whole in your mind.
A microscope wouldn't hurt, either; the fabrication of
certain metals is an important step in the construction of
engines.
| What better attire for the wolf, than the cloak of the sheep?
Then why do wolves persist in wearing wolf?
--
)*( Gordon Fitch )*( g...@panix.com )*(
Mark O. Wilson
|with a microscope. This is surely psuedo-economics. I could also point
|out to you that Madonna makes millions a year for her contribution to
|society. Say she makes 200 times as much per year as a factory hand.
|By your reckoning her contribution to society is 200 times as valuable?
Yes.
I might add that while there are a couple of songs by Madonna that I like.
I care nothing for here stage persona, nor her recent exploits.
But obviously, there are a lot of people who disagree with me.
Just because I personally don't like something, does not make that something
worthless.
santanu bhattacharyya
>Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Mark....@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Yes, but to what ? :-)
Santanu
James F. Hranicky
|> James F. Hranicky <j...@beach.cis.ufl.edu> wrote:
|> | Also, there are many factory hands, but only one Madonna (thank God!!!)
|> |
|> | If there was only one factory hand, he would get paid quite a bit to crank out
|> | stuff.
|>
|> I think you're a bit off on this. If there were only one
|> factory hand, the industrial system wouldn't work, and the
|> factory hand, or rather, her labor, wouldn't be worth any
|> more than the next person's.
Oh come on!!! No kidding...I was simply making the point that there are more
factory hands than Madonnas -- supply and demand stuff, you know...
[other Madonna stuff deleted...sheeze]
|> | You will go a long way explaining how a human being works by looking at
|> | DNA through a microscope....
|>
|> I think you have to start with a human being to make DNA
|> meaningful, though.
Did I imply otherwise?
---------------
Jim Hranicky (j...@beach.cis.ufl.edu)
What better attire for the wolf, than the cloak of the sheep?
---------------
Alan Bomberger
Such a poor showing by the consumer! It constantly saddens me that the
consumer shows little more sense than our voters. I guess since they
are both the same this is expected. What can one say to a person that
values Madonna albums higher than a toaster? Sigh!
|> --
|> Chris Auld
|> Department of Economics
|> Queen's University at Kingston
|> au...@econ01.econ.queensu.ca
--
Mark O. Wilson
I don't know. I guess it's all relative.
--
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
John R. Moore
In article <1993Nov22.0...@trl.oz.au> s.ma...@trl.oz.au writes:
>In article <dasherCG...@netcom.com>, das...@netcom.com (D. Anton Sherwood) writes:
>|> In article <jshorten.18...@julian.uwo.ca> jsho...@julian.uwo.ca (Jay Shorten) writes:
>|> >>|Individuals may have the freedom to move up, but common sense
>|> >>|dictates that most must fail. There is only so much wealth and
>|> >>|resources to go around.
>|> >>
>|> >>The fallacy here is your claim that there is only so much wealth to
>|> >>go around. Wealth is being created all of the time.
>|> >
>|> >...at the expense of someone else's wealth.
>|>
>|> This is the central fallacy of pseudo-economics.
>|>
>|> Suppose I hire you to build me a bookshelf.
>|> You give up some leisure and energy, and get some money.
>|> I give up some money and lumber, and get a bookshelf,
>|> which is worth more to me than the raw lumber was.
>|>
>|> According to you, one of us must be worse off. Which? Why?
>|> And why did one of us agree to a transaction that made him poorer?
>
>Looking at capitalism from this level and trying to prove a point is
>like trying to demonstrate how an engine works by examining a part of it
>with a microscope.
Not at all. It is like trying to understand how gas works by examining
the behavior of individual atoms, and then generalizing. Feynman's Physics
series demonstrates this, and it works quite well.
The secret of capitalism is that it IS a bunch of little decisions. Only
statists, who are used to decisions that affect the entire economy, would
look at it at such a high level.
>This is surely psuedo-economics. I could also point
>out to you that Madonna makes millions a year for her contribution to
>society. Say she makes 200 times as much per year as a factory hand.
>By your reckoning her contribution to society is 200 times as valuable?
It is to the people willing to freely exchange their money for her products.
--
DISCLAIMER: These views are mine alone, and do not reflect my employer's!
John Moore 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253 USA (602-951-9326)
jo...@anasazi.com Amateur call:NJ7E Civil Air Patrol:Thunderbird 381
- - Support ALL ...erk glugh mmpph.... Memory fault (core dumped)
Steven Mathers
I understand how capitalism rationalizes the example I gave. My point
is that this is only one view of the situation. My view is that each
`worker' should receive an equal return from society for their
contribution to it. The value of their work being judged on its
neccessity to society.
Steve Mathers
s.ma...@trl.oz.au
Steven Mathers
|> >Looking at capitalism from this level and trying to prove a point is
|> >like trying to demonstrate how an engine works by examining a part of it
|> >with a microscope.
|> Not at all. It is like trying to understand how gas works by examining
|> the behavior of individual atoms, and then generalizing. Feynman's Physics
|> series demonstrates this, and it works quite well.
Only because all gas molecules are equal.
William Schafer
It seems to me that this type of logic can be carried to absurd extremes.
Does a graduate student (salary approx 13,000/yr) who discovers a
scientific technique subsequently used in many other labs classify as
less productive than, say, someone who invests a million dollars at 3%
return and sits on his ass? Maybe by your standards, but not by mine(or
most people's I imagine. By your standard, one would have to conclude
that Jeff Koons is a more productive artist than Van Gogh, who made
virtually nothing from his art. Similarly, an arms dealer who makes
millions selling arms to Iraq would be more productive than, say, a
teacher. I think these examples illustrate several points that
worshippers of capitalism seem to ignore:
1) There are lots of ways to make money that are totally legal in a
capitalist system that contribute little, and may actually cause more
harm than good, to the world at large. Only a truly naive person would
question this.
2) Many people produce very valuable ideas, inventions, works of art, etc.
from which they themselves get little money.
3) There is a distinction to be made between the strict economic definitio
tion of value (what you can get for a good or service in a free market) and
the value of something in the vernacular sense of usefulness, importance,
and benefit to society as a whole. They don't necessarily correspond.
One more example--just because Vince Coleman makes more money than Babe
Ruth did, it doesn't mean he's a better ballplayer.
Chris Auld
>au...@qed.uucp (Chris Auld) writes:
>It seems to me that this type of logic can be carried to absurd extremes.
>Does a graduate student (salary approx 13,000/yr) who discovers a
>scientific technique subsequently used in many other labs classify as
>less productive than, say, someone who invests a million dollars at 3%
>return and sits on his ass? Maybe by your standards, but not by mine(or
>most people's I imagine. By your standard, one would have to conclude
>that Jeff Koons is a more productive artist than Van Gogh, who made
>virtually nothing from his art. Similarly, an arms dealer who makes
>millions selling arms to Iraq would be more productive than, say, a
>teacher. I think these examples illustrate several points that
>worshippers of capitalism seem to ignore:
Well, no one ever said that the type of relation I commented on was
perfect. Your hypothetical graduate student produced knowledge, which
has the property of non-excludability. The artist's work is subject to
imperfect information, and the arms dealer does provide a service which
others value, whether it offends your sensibilities or not. The point,
however, is that _generally_ returns are roughly commensurate with
product (the millionaire's capital is productive), and, in general, the
market does a better job than any other mechanism mankind has dreamed
up. Surely, the Ministry of Fair Wages, despite the best of intentions,
would simply be incapable of appropriately distributing resources and
providing the proper incentives.
Susan Garvin
William Schafer <wsch...@socrates.ucsf.edu> wrote:
#2) Many people produce very valuable ideas, inventions, works of art, etc.
[lots of text deleted]
#tion of value (what you can get for a good or service in a free market) and
#the value of something in the vernacular sense of usefulness, importance,
#and benefit to society as a whole. They don't necessarily correspond.
#
#One more example--just because Vince Coleman makes more money than Babe
#Ruth did, it doesn't mean he's a better ballplayer.
Quite simply, you're confusing "value" with "measure of value."
The "strict economic definition of value" corresponds to that
which you characterize as vernacular.
Susan
Dennis Allard
>Actually, the notion that voluntary exchange makes both parties better
>off is not ``pseudo-economics'' at all, it's a fundamental insight of
>economics going back to, at least, Adam Smith.
And alienation of labour is a fundamental insight going back to at
least Marx. So what?
In capitalism, neither the capitalist nor the labour provider are
acting volontarily. The capitalist has no choice but to purchase
the working ablity of labor in order to make profit. The worker
has no choice but to sell their capacity to work to some capitalist
(the worker does get to choose to *which* capitalist he will alienate
his labor from himself. Some choice!). But freedom comes from
the ability to be the decision maker for important things affecting
your life. In the fiefdoms of modern corporations, that decision
making power is held by a distinct minority.
Some (not all) workers in contemporary society may work their way
'up'. (When a libertarian says that 'anyone' may work their way 'up',
they mean that 'some' people may do so). If everyone did so, we
wouldn't have capiatalism anymore.
Our places of work are not democratic institutions. In this way, they
differ from government, which we freely elect and can control in ways
not possible to the workers in capitalist based institutions.
As long as we have the immoral situation of very low wage earners
representing a large mass of our population, as long as the decision
making in a company is as undemocratic as it is now, as long as
administrative assistants and janitors and fast food servers are
in positions of low prestige, then we cannot say we are free or that
our transactions are 'voluntary'.
All we've done so far is to replace a feudal system with few kings
and princes by a capitalist one with a broader power hierarchy. Don't
talk to me about voluntary action until you've demonstrated an
understanding of what conditions are necessary to enable freedom.
Capitalism is a step toward freedom, but in significant ways
it hinders freedom.
Dennis Allard
all...@oceanpark.com
Chris Holt
>wsch...@socrates.ucsf.edu (William Schafer) writes:
>>Does a graduate student (salary approx 13,000/yr) who discovers a
>>scientific technique subsequently used in many other labs classify as
>>less productive than, say, someone who invests a million dollars at 3%
>>return and sits on his ass? Maybe by your standards, but not by mine(or
>>most people's I imagine...
>Well, no one ever said that the type of relation I commented on was
>perfect. Your hypothetical graduate student produced knowledge, which
>has the property of non-excludability. The artist's work is subject to
>imperfect information, and the arms dealer does provide a service which
>others value, whether it offends your sensibilities or not. The point,
>however, is that _generally_ returns are roughly commensurate with
>product (the millionaire's capital is productive), and, in general, the
>market does a better job than any other mechanism mankind has dreamed
>up.
But this is the point under contention; *how* generally are
returns commensurate with the product? Can we characterize
the situations and types of product for which the commensurability
is good, and those for which it is bad? If we can outline the
kinds of circumstances that lead to poor commensurability,
then it might be possible to improve the situation in those
cases.
>Surely, the Ministry of Fair Wages, despite the best of intentions,
>would simply be incapable of appropriately distributing resources and
>providing the proper incentives.
In many circumstances, yes; in some circumstances, no. It
depends on the volatility of the given market, the degree
to which externalities are present, and so forth. But it
doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing situation, in which
the same mechanism is applied everywhere.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris...@newcastle.ac.uk Computing Science, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
All that we see or seem / Is but a dream within a virtual workspace.
D. Anton Sherwood
> I have a paper I am working on for my Normative Theories of
>Law class and would like some input. I am arguing for a libertarian
>legal system and against utilitarianism and liberalism (esp. the kind
>advocated by John Rawls of Harvard).
> Can anyone help me? Please post or email me.
Some books you might find useful:
THE ENTERPRISE OF LAW by Bruce Benson
THE MACHINERY OF FREEDOM by David Friedman
THE MARKET FOR LIBERTY by Morris & Linda Tannehill
THE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF LAW by Landes & Posner
ORDER WITHOUT LAW by ... I forget
FOR A NEW LIBERTY by Murray Rothbard
--
Anton Sherwood *\\* +1 415 267 0685 *\\* DAS...@netcom.com
Bureau of Making Sure You Get Enough Sleep and Eat Your Vegetables
D. Anton Sherwood
[response to someone else]
>
>(now to flame the original poster, Mr. Sherwood)
Promises, promises. I have to say I'm disappointed, Ms. Lee.
>You seem to be part of the chorus of people saying "look, nobody's holding a
>gun to either of these people's heads, and obviously they both come out ahead,
>and if they didn't they wouldn't have agreed to the transaction in the first
>place etc. etc. etc."
>
>OK, I'll buy that, BUT...
>
>For a lot of us working stiffs, sure, working for peanuts beats working for
>nothing, and even beats not having the opportunity to work. So you could say
>that when we make an employment transaction (which, for the sake of argument,
>includes an agreement not to participate in organized labor, an understanding
>that my I'm to represent the company with conservative standards of dress and
>grooming on company time and off, and a few waivers of my legal privacy rights
>thrown in etc. etc. etc.)
I don't work for idiots with rules like that.
They can do without me; I can do without them.
> we "come out ahead" of where we'd be without making
>the transaction. This is technically true, but a lot of us are tempted to
>believe that we are somehow morally entitled to more and better choices than
>the selection which actually exists.
Entitled how? By divine revelation? Your own language seems to show you
know this is wishful thinking. Wishful thinking feeds only politicians.
>I.e. we don't ask ourselves if a
>transaction makes us better off, using "nothing" as a baseline. We tend to use
>what we think is reasonable as a baseline, and count anything we "agree to"
>that falls short of that as a loss.
Well, how do we set the baseline?
I wish we could all live like gods without toil. I wish I didn't have
reason to think I need to lock my door. I wish I didn't have to floss
my teeth.
I'm not getting my wish. But every capitalist brings me a hair's breadth
nearer to getting it, not farther away.
Ted Frank
>Some books you might find useful:
A great book, now in the Fourth Edition, but Landes had nothing to
do with it. Just Posner, all by himself. Law & economics comes
to similar results, values markets highly, but it's not, by
itself, libertarianism.
--
ted frank | "But I'm not in anyone's .sig"
th...@kimbark.uchicago.edu | -- Vicki Robinson
the u of c law school |---------------------------------------------------
kibo number of 0.5 | Standard disclaimers apply
D. Anton Sherwood
>|> Suppose I hire you to build me a bookshelf.
>|> According to you, one of us must be worse off. Which? Why?
>|> And why did one of us agree to a transaction that made him poorer?
>
>Looking at capitalism from this level and trying to prove a point is
>like trying to demonstrate how an engine works by examining a part of it
>with a microscope. This is surely psuedo-economics.
Okay. Show me the other levels of capitalism. Show me how positive-sum
transactions add up to zero-sum transactions. I am eager to learn.
> I could also point
>out to you that Madonna makes millions a year for her contribution to
>society. Say she makes 200 times as much per year as a factory hand.
>By your reckoning her contribution to society is 200 times as valuable?
Because Madonna does what she does -- presumably for the money -- I have
had at least $20 worth of pleasure that I'd not have otherwise. Millions
of others have enjoyed her. Say for the sake of argument two million.
If a random factory hand dies, are ten thousand people affected?
Does a factory hand bring me -- personally -- a dime's worth of
pleasure, on average?
(This is not the place to argue Madonna's merits as an artist;
all that matters is that I paid willingly for what she produces.
As it happens, I bought two of her discs second-hand.)
D. Anton Sherwood
>
>Such a poor showing by the consumer! It constantly saddens me that the
>consumer shows little more sense than our voters. I guess since they
>are both the same this is expected. What can one say to a person that
>values Madonna albums higher than a toaster? Sigh!
One can say, "I guess you don't eat toast, or if you do,
you already have a toaster."
D. Anton Sherwood
>contribution to it. The value of their work being judged on its
>neccessity to society.
Who is to judge necessity, if not the consumer?
Who is society, if not the aggregate of consumers?
[*] Should "for" here be "to"?
John R. Moore
>au...@qed.uucp (Chris Auld) writes:
>>Actually, the notion that voluntary exchange makes both parties better
>>off is not ``pseudo-economics'' at all, it's a fundamental insight of
>>economics going back to, at least, Adam Smith.
>And alienation of labour is a fundamental insight going back to at
>least Marx. So what?
>In capitalism, neither the capitalist nor the labour provider are
>acting volontarily. The capitalist has no choice but to purchase
>the working ablity of labor in order to make profit. The worker
Not true. He has choice over how much labor and where to purchase it. He
can choose to substitute capital for labor (automation) or to invest
his capital in a different industry.
>has no choice but to sell their capacity to work to some capitalist
>(the worker does get to choose to *which* capitalist he will alienate
>his labor from himself. Some choice!). But freedom comes from
Nonsense. The worker can become a capitalist. The worker can also become
a service worker and sell his labor to the people at large (for example
, a plumber).
>the ability to be the decision maker for important things affecting
>your life. In the fiefdoms of modern corporations, that decision
>making power is held by a distinct minority.
Freedom comes from the lack of armed coercion. Power is a different matter.
In modern corporations, as in any specialized organization or society, some
people have more decision making power than others. However, the worker
is free to go to another corporation or take the other choices I showed
above. Furthermore, the "management" are also workers - all the way to
the top their decisions are circumscribed by others. At the top of the
pyramid are the investors, who are often fiduciaries for workers who
have invested in pension funds or mutual funds, or who are ordinary people
who have invested. Finally, there is the customer, who can make the whole
pyramid come crashing down. Frequently the customer is the consumer!
Finally, in a meritocracy (which corporations approach in the limit), a
"worker" can become "management" or "capitalist."
So your whining about freedom is really pretty silly in true capitalism.
>Some (not all) workers in contemporary society may work their way
>'up'. (When a libertarian says that 'anyone' may work their way 'up',
>they mean that 'some' people may do so). If everyone did so, we
>wouldn't have capiatalism anymore.
Or socialism, or any other specialized system.
>Our places of work are not democratic institutions. In this way, they
>differ from government, which we freely elect and can control in ways
>not possible to the workers in capitalist based institutions.
No, corporations aren't democratic. The market, however, IS democratic.
Furthermore, in the age of giant countries with giant government, the
government isn't democratic either. The ability of any one worker to
influence government decisions is LESS than that workers ability to
influence corporate decisions. Furthermore, the government (in the US,
for example) has huge bureaucracies which are not elected, and which are
only marginally responsive to the whim of the majority.
>As long as we have the immoral situation of very low wage earners
>representing a large mass of our population, as long as the decision
>making in a company is as undemocratic as it is now, as long as
>administrative assistants and janitors and fast food servers are
>in positions of low prestige, then we cannot say we are free or that
>our transactions are 'voluntary'.
Hah! "Immoral situation." Once again, we have people sniping at features
of capitalism that are inevitable in any successful specialized (ie, modern)
society, without offering up solutions.
I call that whining.
>All we've done so far is to replace a feudal system with few kings
>and princes by a capitalist one with a broader power hierarchy. Don't
>talk to me about voluntary action until you've demonstrated an
>understanding of what conditions are necessary to enable freedom.
The pot calling the kettle black. I haven't heard your suggestions!
>Capitalism is a step toward freedom, but in significant ways
>it hinders freedom.
Life fits that characterisation.
--
DISCLAIMER: These views are mine alone, and do not reflect my employer's!
John Moore 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253 USA (602-951-9326)
jo...@anasazi.com Amateur call:NJ7E Civil Air Patrol:Thunderbird 381
"Government is the agent of those who are too refined to do their own mugging."
Joseph Sobran
John R. Moore
>It seems to me that this type of logic can be carried to absurd extremes.
>Does a graduate student (salary approx 13,000/yr) who discovers a
>scientific technique subsequently used in many other labs classify as
>less productive than, say, someone who invests a million dollars at 3%
>return and sits on his ass? Maybe by your standards, but not by mine(or
>most people's I imagine. By your standard, one would have to conclude
>that Jeff Koons is a more productive artist than Van Gogh, who made
>virtually nothing from his art. Similarly, an arms dealer who makes
>millions selling arms to Iraq would be more productive than, say, a
>teacher. I think these examples illustrate several points that
>worshippers of capitalism seem to ignore:
>1) There are lots of ways to make money that are totally legal in a
>capitalist system that contribute little, and may actually cause more
>harm than good, to the world at large. Only a truly naive person would
>question this.
True.
>2) Many people produce very valuable ideas, inventions, works of art, etc.
>from which they themselves get little money.
True.
>3) There is a distinction to be made between the strict economic definitio
>tion of value (what you can get for a good or service in a free market) and
>the value of something in the vernacular sense of usefulness, importance,
>and benefit to society as a whole. They don't necessarily correspond.
True.
>One more example--just because Vince Coleman makes more money than Babe
>Ruth did, it doesn't mean he's a better ballplayer.
But you are being purist. Of course capitalism isn't perfect. No system
is. Of course one will be able to find examples where the capitalist
system produced the wrong result.
The problem is what you propose to do about it? Everything that people have
thought up so far has had even worse problems.
Capitalism is the worst system in the world, except for all the others!
--
DISCLAIMER: These views are mine alone, and do not reflect my employer's!
John Moore 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253 USA (602-951-9326)
jo...@anasazi.com Amateur call:NJ7E Civil Air Patrol:Thunderbird 381
- - A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality! - -
- - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
D. Anton Sherwood
>Does a graduate student (salary approx 13,000/yr) who discovers a
>scientific technique subsequently used in many other labs classify as
>less productive than, say, someone who invests a million dollars at 3%
>return and sits on his ass?
Well, where did the million come from, and what is being done with it?
And can you really get a comfortable return without paying attention
to your investments?
>. By your standard, one would have to conclude
>that Jeff Koons is a more productive artist than Van Gogh, who made
>virtually nothing from his art.
Making art isn't enough -- you have to bring it to your public.
Vincent did a poor job of that. Evidently people are enjoying
Koons' work during his lifetime; good for him.
> Similarly, an arms dealer who makes
>millions selling arms to Iraq would be more productive than, say, a
>teacher.
If politicians are allowed to set the standards of value!
> I think these examples illustrate several points that
>worshippers of capitalism seem to ignore:
>1) There are lots of ways to make money that are totally legal in a
>capitalist system that contribute little, and may actually cause more
>harm than good, to the world at large. Only a truly naive person would
>question this.
I'm sure we'd all be interested in some examples.
>2) Many people produce very valuable ideas, inventions, works of art, etc.
>from which they themselves get little money.
True. What do you suggest? Enforcement of copyright?
>3) There is a distinction to be made between the strict economic definitio
>tion of value (what you can get for a good or service in a free market) and
>the value of something in the vernacular sense of usefulness, importance,
>and benefit to society as a whole. They don't necessarily correspond.
How do you measure the latter?
>One more example--just because Vince Coleman makes more money than Babe
>Ruth did, it doesn't mean he's a better ballplayer.
If the difference is not just inflation, it means he's better at
the business of living as a ballplayer. Not that the fans care.
D. Anton Sherwood
in a society dominated by the giant government (advised by experts
like himself).
In article <2cg9u5$1...@amhux3.amherst.edu> hjwu...@unix.amherst.edu (Harris Wulfson) writes:
>Charles Board P025 (cnc...@bnr.ca) wrote:
>: In article <dasherCG...@netcom.com>, das...@netcom.com (D. Anton Sherwood) writes:
>: >
>: > Those who have the most to spend are (in a free market) those who have
>: > shown ability to provide what many people want -- whatever that is.
>
>: Or, more commonly, the ability to get people to want the useless items
>: they provide.
>
>Right on! This is exactly what J.K. Galbraith argues: that consumer sovereignty
>is a myth in a society dominated by the giant corporation.
D. Anton Sherwood
>In article <dasherCG...@netcom.com> das...@netcom.com (D. Anton Sherwood) writes:
[responding to someone's wish that good and evil
or social priorities or something like that not
be defined solely by money]
>>We hire detectives to deter crime. We buy guns to defend ourselves.
>>Effective detectives and skilled gunsmiths thus have ability to make
>>money.
>>
>That is true. We also hire Congresspeople to pass the laws that govern us.
>
>However, it isn't working. Perhaps if we decided how to deal with crime
>by some other means than the $ ballot box, we would have less of it.
>
>>Those who have the most to spend are (in a free market) those who have
>>shown ability to provide what many people want -- whatever that is.
>
>I guess I don't understand what this has to do with preventing crime.
I am hinting at anarcho-capitalism, wherein law enforcement priorities
are set by the people who hire the police. (I believe that not many
would pay to rid the world of pornography.) The police/defense agencies
that produce the best flavors of law will prosper. Should I elaborate?
D. Anton Sherwood
>
>In capitalism, neither the capitalist nor the labour provider are
>acting volontarily. The capitalist has no choice but to purchase
>the working ablity of labor in order to make profit. The worker
>has no choice but to sell their capacity to work to some capitalist
Well, heck, nobody's acting voluntarily, because nature immorally
refuses to deliver our food. So?
> But freedom comes from
>the ability to be the decision maker for important things affecting
>your life. In the fiefdoms of modern corporations, that decision
>making power is held by a distinct minority.
I choose where I live; I chose whom I married; I choose what vitamins
I eat; I chose in '87 to change careers . . .
Could you be a bit more specific in what you mean by "important things
affecting your life"?
>Some (not all) workers in contemporary society may work their way
>'up'. (When a libertarian says that 'anyone' may work their way 'up',
>they mean that 'some' people may do so). If everyone did so, we
>wouldn't have capiatalism anymore.
We are seeing a trend to smaller businesses and more ad-hoc operation;
the logical conclusion of the trend is universal self-employment. (Of
course I do not say the logical end will be reached other than in the
asymptote.) Isn't it capitalism if everyone is self-employed, and
all the goods of production are privately owned? If you say no,
I don't mind.
I think, though, that even in such a case there will be specialization
between owners and users of tools, just as now there is specialization
between owners and occupants of buildings.
>Our places of work are not democratic institutions. In this way, they
>differ from government, which we freely elect and can control in ways
>not possible to the workers in capitalist based institutions.
I don't know about you, but I've had more influence on my capitalistic
employers than on my democratic governments.
D. Anton Sherwood
>
>I want a society that has other values i.e., one that does not tolerate
>murder, violence, arson, child molestation. The ability deal with these
>sorts or things is not necessarily correlated with the ability to make
>money. In fact it may be inversely correlated!
D. Anton Sherwood
>In article <dasherCG...@netcom.com> das...@netcom.com (D. Anton Sherwood) writes:
>>Those who have the most to spend are (in a free market) those who have
>>shown ability to provide what many people want -- whatever that is.
>
>a) the most successful thieves
Examples?
>b) the most successful liars and cheaters in business
>c) those who can locate the least savvy and most unsophisticated consumers
It's always in the consumer's interest to become more savvy.
>d) those who sell products that are chemically addictive
How would you prevent this?
>e) those who excel at overworking and underpaying their employees
Those who need not compete with other employers for those employees?
>f) those who can achieve monopolies and near monoploies. (It may be a free
> market, but if one person owns 95% of the oil deposits....).
Show me an example of a monopoly, or a near monopoly, that was not
created by the state.
>Any Propertarian society is still going to have thieves, cheats, and liars.
And another won't? (Of course, without property theft is a virtue)
>Some will be very successful and join that class that has the most to spend.
Utopia is not an option.
>Some of us in alt.society.anarchy feel that they already comprise the vast
>majority of that class.
Some of us in alt.politics.libertarian agree. They're called politicians.
Steven Mathers
That may be so, but when you are discussing doing away with
government/money/the market, that definition is hardly appropriate.
Thats like trying to proove the validity of the bible by quoting bible
verses.
Steve Mathers
s.ma...@trl.oz.au
Steven Mathers
|> In article <1993Nov24.2...@trl.oz.au> s.ma...@trl.oz.au writes:
|> >
|> >. My view is that each
|> >`worker' should receive an equal return from society for[*] their
|> >contribution to it. The value of their work being judged on its
|> >neccessity to society.
|>
|> Who is to judge necessity, if not the consumer?
By consumer, you mean person, right? And yes, I agree. However that is
not what happens when money is involved. What happens is, the worker is
paid as little in return for his labour that the employer can possible
get away with. What is a fair return doesnt enter into the equation.
|> Who is society, if not the aggregate of consumers?
Depends on who you are. If you are one of the elite, then society is
the other elites. A class system doesnt recognize those on the lower
rungs as significant.
|>
|> [*] Should "for" here be "to"?
no.
Steve Mathers
s.ma...@trl.oz.au
Steven Mathers
|> >|> Suppose I hire you to build me a bookshelf.
|> >|> [...]
|> >|> According to you, one of us must be worse off. Which? Why?
|> >|> And why did one of us agree to a transaction that made him poorer?
|> >
|> >Looking at capitalism from this level and trying to prove a point is
|> >like trying to demonstrate how an engine works by examining a part of it
|> >with a microscope. This is surely psuedo-economics.
|>
|> Okay. Show me the other levels of capitalism. Show me how positive-sum
|> transactions add up to zero-sum transactions. I am eager to learn.
Well, here is my original posting again....
--------------------
Here is a view of capitalism that looks at it from a broad perspective
rather than from the level of the individual. Im not sure if it is
a reasonable representation, but it makes sense to me.
Lets look at a graph with a vertical axis of wealth(power) and a
horizontal axis of numbers of people. The vertical axis probably
should be exponential rather than linear.
wealth
^
|
|\
| \
| \
| \
| \
| \
| \
| \
| \
| \
| \
| \
| \
+---------------------------> numbers of people
This is the way a capitalist society must look in general form. If we
take the world view, you will have the botom of the pyramid made up of a
large percentage of the people living in the third world, and some of
the poorest people from Western nations, and then up through the
peasant farmers and blue collar workers then the Western middle class,
upper class and finally the mega rich. Note that a large proportion of
the triangle is made up of the third world. Only the toppish bit has
many people from Western societies in it, even the realtively poor
ones.
Now the individual motes in this pyramid (us) have the ability to rise
up within it, even though there is considerable pressure at
various altitudes to prevent it. I think the two main pressure barriers
are at the level where the desperately poor third world level attempts
to rise up to lower/middle class, and where the lower/middle class
attempts to rise to righ/mega rich levels. There are only so many
people who can actually be in the top part of the pyramid at any one
time. Individuals may have the freedom to move up, but common sense
dictates that most must fail. There is only so much wealth and
resources to go around at any one time -- the majority at the bottom
must support the rest.
I think the area under the graph expands with population growth and when
the economy experiences growth. that is, the top part goes up by
one exponential factor, and maybe so does the bottom part. ie: The
top might rise by 10^6 while the bottom rises by 10^1. I am making
these figures up melrely as an indication of orders of magnitude.
As technology advances, the actual level of poverty for the third world
may rise. This will not affect the shape of the graph, it will merely
shift it upwards by a small amount on the vertical axis. This will
represent the slow, painful and horrible (for most of the individuals
concerned) rise of the third world into industrialized nations capable
of supplying cheap manufactured goods to the rest of the pyramid,
rather than just their natural resources.
I hope this helps people grasp the fundamental concept of capitalism,
and if anyone can point out why this is not a valid representation, I
would be pleased to hear it.
Steve Mathers
s.ma...@trl.oz.au
Steven Mathers
|> is. Of course one will be able to find examples where the capitalist
|> system produced the wrong result.
|>
|> The problem is what you propose to do about it? Everything that people have
|> thought up so far has had even worse problems.
|>
|> Capitalism is the worst system in the world, except for all the others!
The first step in rectifying a situation is to identify the problems
with the one we have. This is the point of the subject, and its why I
posted the original message (which I just reposted). I dont see it as
'some examples of where capitalism goes wrong'. I see it that
capitalism is designed to 'go wrong'. Its a system in which everybody
tries to sit on the shoulders of evrybody else, on a local or global
scale. This system might benefit some, but it is horrible for most
others. the trouble is that the poeple on top have the power to
perpetuate the siutation.
Steve Mathers
s.ma...@trl.oz.au
Steven Mathers
|> Freedom comes from the lack of armed coercion. Power is a different matter.
|> In modern corporations, as in any specialized organization or society, some
|> people have more decision making power than others. However, the worker
|> is free to go to another corporation or take the other choices I showed
|> above. Furthermore, the "management" are also workers - all the way to
|> the top their decisions are circumscribed by others. At the top of the
|> pyramid are the investors, who are often fiduciaries for workers who
|> have invested in pension funds or mutual funds, or who are ordinary people
|> who have invested. Finally, there is the customer, who can make the whole
|> pyramid come crashing down. Frequently the customer is the consumer!
|>
|> Finally, in a meritocracy (which corporations approach in the limit), a
|> "worker" can become "management" or "capitalist."
|>
|> So your whining about freedom is really pretty silly in true capitalism.
True capitalism, huh? Do you know what a sweat shop is? Do you know
why strikebreakers exist? Capitalism is the freedom of those in power
to do anything they possibly can get away with in the name of profit. That is
capitalism. Your 'let them eat cake' attitude is really starting to
piss me off.
Steve Mathers
s.ma...@trl.oz.au
Steven Mathers
|> [responding to someone's wish that good and evil
|> or social priorities or something like that not
|> be defined solely by money]
|> >>We hire detectives to deter crime. We buy guns to defend ourselves.
|> >>Effective detectives and skilled gunsmiths thus have ability to make
|> >>money.
|> >>
|> >That is true. We also hire Congresspeople to pass the laws that govern us.
|> >
|> >However, it isn't working. Perhaps if we decided how to deal with crime
|> >by some other means than the $ ballot box, we would have less of it.
|> >
|> >>Those who have the most to spend are (in a free market) those who have
|> >>shown ability to provide what many people want -- whatever that is.
|> >>Money is not an abstraction -- it is intimately tied to our desires.
|> >
|> >I guess I don't understand what this has to do with preventing crime.
|>
|> I am hinting at anarcho-capitalism, wherein law enforcement priorities
|> are set by the people who hire the police. (I believe that not many
|> would pay to rid the world of pornography.) The police/defense agencies
> that produce the best flavors of law will prosper. Should I elaborate?
That would be truly evil in my opinion...just an extension of what
actually happens now, in that those with the money decide the law, and
the law shall be written according to their own best interests. At
least now we have the pretense, even if that is all it is.
Anarcho-capitalism is taking all the bad points of our present system
and throwing away the rest. Why not eliminate the need for law by
eliminating the motive for breaking it -- the profit motive?
Steve Mathers
s.ma...@trl.oz.au
John R. Moore
>I am hinting at anarcho-capitalism, wherein law enforcement priorities
>are set by the people who hire the police. (I believe that not many
>would pay to rid the world of pornography.)
to put amazing restrictions on others. Have you ever dealt with a homeowner's
association? This is a form of communal cooperation that has legal authority
over certain aspects of people's property. Homeowner's associations are
notorious for their willingness to spend their money to do stupid things.
>The police/defense agencies
>that produce the best flavors of law will prosper. Should I elaborate?
Yes. I think you are dreaming. Who polices the police? What is the difference
between a private police force and a warlord's army? Defense against a modern
nation requires more than a bunch of individual private entities - it
requires (sigh) central planning.
--
DISCLAIMER: These views are mine alone, and do not reflect my employer's!
John Moore 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253 USA (602-951-9326)
jo...@anasazi.com Amateur call:NJ7E Civil Air Patrol:Thunderbird 381
"Only a planned economy can make full use of a nation's resources" - A. Hitler
Confiscation = "Contribution or Sacrifice" Tax = "Investment" - B. Clinton
Roger Lewis
>In article <2cef03$o...@darkstar.isi.edu> rle...@darkstar.isi.edu (Roger Lewis) writes:
>>In article <dasherCG...@netcom.com> das...@netcom.com (D. Anton Sherwood) writes:
>>>Those who have the most to spend are (in a free market) those who have
>>>shown ability to provide what many people want -- whatever that is.
>>Those who have the most to spend are also composed of:
>>a) the most successful thieves
>Examples?
There are an awful lot of unsolved thefts including some armored car robberies,
train robberies, etc. These thieves whose identities we don't know are the
successful thieves. They have more to spend than you and I but they hardly
achieved it by having "shown ability to provide what many people want".
Propertarian societies will always have thieves.
Also, many thieves who are eventually caught STILL spend lots of money
before they do get caught. (The fact that they spend it in their veins and
it is unrecoverable notwithstanding).
>>d) those who sell products that are chemically addictive
>How would you prevent this?
If you mean how would my idealized society prevent this, we would teach
people the truth about drugs and not go around throwing people in cages.
We also wouldn't be chasing profits, and unlike money, most addictive drugs
pretty much grow on trees. :-)
>>e) those who excel at overworking and underpaying their employees
>Those who need not compete with other employers for those employees?
Capitalism keeps a vast pool of unemployed workers available to keep the
other workers worried about their survival. This vast pool of unemployed
people assures that many employers need not compete with other employers.
>>f) those who can achieve monopolies and near monopolies. (It may be a free
>> market, but if one person owns 95% of the oil deposits....).
>Show me an example of a monopoly, or a near monopoly, that was not
>created by the state.
I can't, because to own 95% of oil deposits, one needs a government to enforce
one's claims on those deposits. The state grants and protects land claims.
One needs the state or some other form of government to enFORCE such claims.
The state may or may not "create" any particular monopoly, but the state
does provide the very foundation for achieving a monopoly by enFORCing
laws designed to protect sole ownership of property. Such hoarding could not
occur as easily if there were no laws and force structure to ensure that one
can hold onto property as solely theirs.
>>Any Propertarian society is still going to have thieves, cheats, and liars.
>And another won't? (Of course, without property theft is a virtue)
You can't steal what isn't owned. :-)
Theft is only theft because legislators have ordained the ways one can and
can't gain possession of things, and threaten the full force of the government
FORCEs to punish what has been deemed theft by those same legislators.
(Regarding Thieves Cheats and Liars):
>>Some will be very successful and join that class that has the most to spend.
>Utopia is not an option.
Then why post to alt.society.anarchy? Utopia *IS* an option here.
--
rle...@isi.edu Power to the People!
Roger Lewis
How does every Capitalist bring you nearer to not needing to lock your door?
Capitalism CAUSES crime. The more propertarian society is, the greater is
the reward for theft. The more socialist a society is, the less reward there
is for "theft".
No one ever robbed a bank to pay for medicine in a society that provides
free health care.
D. Anton Sherwood
>In article <dasherCH...@netcom.com> das...@netcom.com (D. Anton Sherwood) writes:
>>In article <2ciiid$k...@oak.oakland.edu> w2...@argo.acs.oakland.edu writes:
>>I wish we could all live like gods without toil. I wish I didn't have
>>reason to think I need to lock my door. I wish I didn't have to floss
>>my teeth.
>
>>I'm not getting my wish. But every capitalist brings me a hair's breadth
>>nearer to getting it, not farther away.
>
>How does every Capitalist bring you nearer to not needing to lock your door?
Oops, I missed that. Well, some capitalist will make a fortune selling
smart locks that recognize their owners. ;)
>Capitalism CAUSES crime. The more propertarian society is, the greater is
>the reward for theft. The more socialist a society is, the less reward there
>is for "theft".
That's true, because the more socialist a society is, the poorer it is.
But it also has more opportunity for theft, and less for honest earning.
>No one ever robbed a bank to pay for medicine in a society that provides
>free health care.
Hah. Ever heard of shortages, rationing and black markets?
D. Anton Sherwood
>In article <dasherCH...@netcom.com>, das...@netcom.com (D. Anton Sherwood) writes:
>|> In article <1993Nov24.2...@trl.oz.au> s.ma...@trl.oz.au writes:
>|> >
>|> >. My view is that each
>|> >contribution to it. The value of their work being judged on its
>|> >neccessity to society.
If everyone's return is to be equal, why bother judging its value
or necessity?
>|> Who is to judge necessity, if not the consumer?
>
>By consumer, you mean person, right? And yes, I agree. However that is
>not what happens when money is involved. What happens is, the worker is
>paid as little in return for his labour that the employer can possible
>get away with.
And I pay as little for my food as I can get away with. So?
You, not I, are the one insisting on a class system. Workers
and capitalists, sellers and consumers are all just trying to
get the best value out of the resources they have to offer.
The worker tries to get the most money for the least labor;
the capitalist tries to get the most labor for the least money.
(Acting as the agent of the end consumer, I might add.)
There is no "union" of employers conspiring to keep wages down,
any more than there is a universal union of workers conspiring
to keep wages up. Much as you would like to see both.
>|> Who is society, if not the aggregate of consumers?
>
>Depends on who you are. If you are one of the elite, then society is
>the other elites. A class system doesnt recognize those on the lower
>rungs as significant.
If that is supposed to answer my question, I can't see how.
D. Anton Sherwood
> I see it that
>capitalism is designed to 'go wrong'. Its a system in which everybody
>tries to sit on the shoulders of evrybody else, on a local or global
>scale. This system might benefit some, but it is horrible for most
>others.
"The State is the great myth whereby everyone tries to live at the
expense of everyone else." (Frederic Bastiat, paraphraed from memory)
The market, on the other hand, is the great reality whereby everyone
can live to the benefit of everyone else. In the market I benefit
only by making someone else better off (in his/her own estimation).
> the trouble is that the poeple on top have the power to
>perpetuate the siutation.
No they haven't, and that is why those at the top always try to use
political (non-market) means to impair the free market so that they
are kept on top. (See "The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality" by Ludwig
von Mises.) An un-hobbled market is too fluid to assure anyone a
permanent place in the pyramid.
Unlike any other order we've seen.
D. Anton Sherwood
A place where people whose skills are not in wide demand can get work.
Some people take jobs in clandestine sweat shops because enlightened
people like you, with the interest of *some* workers -- those with
political power -- at heart, would arrest them as "illegal aliens"
if they were found working.
> Do you know
>why strikebreakers exist?
Because capitalism, properly understood as respect for property rights
(of which the most fundamental is self-ownership), results in a system
too fluid for the tastes of some, who result to political means (coercion)
to keep themselves in their comfortable places.
> Capitalism is the freedom of those in power
>to do anything they possibly can get away with in the name of profit. That is
>capitalism. Your 'let them eat cake' attitude is really starting to
>piss me off.
Well, if that is capitalism, then to hell with it. But some of us
have more respect for the language than to apply "capitalism" to
"anything I don't like".
D. Anton Sherwood
>das...@netcom.com (D. Anton Sherwood) writes:
>>I am hinting at anarcho-capitalism, wherein law enforcement priorities
>>are set by the people who hire the police. (I believe that not many
>>would pay to rid the world of pornography.)
>You would be unhappily surprised then. An amazing number of people are willing
>to put amazing restrictions on others. Have you ever dealt with a homeowner's
>association? This is a form of communal cooperation that has legal authority
>over certain aspects of people's property. Homeowner's associations are
>notorious for their willingness to spend their money to do stupid things.
On NIMBY principles, but will they leave their own narrow turf to harass
vice elsewhere?
>>The police/defense agencies
>>that produce the best flavors of law will prosper. Should I elaborate?
>Yes. I think you are dreaming. Who polices the police?
Other police; the threat of competition; the same moral constraints
that police in our society recognize, to some degree, even when they
have no practical teeth.
> What is the difference
>between a private police force and a warlord's army?
Scale; the nature of the customers; specialization. I would hire
a firm skilled in small-scale defense; I would not hire a firm
skilled in mass aggression. I don't think they are necesssarily
related skills.
> Defense against a modern
>nation requires more than a bunch of individual private entities - it
>requires (sigh) central planning.
I wish Robin Hanson were reading this. He wrote an interesting essay
a while back which may refute that statement. Unfortunately I am not
at liberty to repost it.
D. Anton Sherwood
>actually happens now, in that those with the money decide the law, and
>the law shall be written according to their own best interests.
Fortunately, in a free market, "those with the money" are everybody,
not just politicians. Don't make the mistake of confusing "more money"
with "all the money". As David Friedman put it, Detroit does not devote
all its plants to making gold-plated Cadillacs for zillionaires.
> Why not eliminate the need for law by
>eliminating the motive for breaking it -- the profit motive?
I prefer the profit motive to the power motive.
Gordon Fitch
Where's this? I want to go there next time I'm broke.
--
)*( Gordon Fitch )*( g...@panix.com )*(
Steve Fischer
>|> In article <1993Nov24.2...@trl.oz.au> s.ma...@trl.oz.au writes:
>|> >
>|> >. My view is that each
>|> >`worker' should receive an equal return from society for[*] their
>|> >contribution to it. The value of their work being judged on its
>|> >neccessity to society.
>|>
>|> Who is to judge necessity, if not the consumer?
>
>By consumer, you mean person, right? And yes, I agree. However that is
>not what happens when money is involved. What happens is, the worker is
>paid as little in return for his labour that the employer can possible
>get away with. What is a fair return doesnt enter into the equation.
An if an employer does not get the return HE desires he won't start
the business in the first place and NO workers will be hired by him.
--
Steve Fischer / Atlanta, Georgia
Disclaimer: I don't tell netcom how to run their business and they don't tell
me what to think or post.
D. Anton Sherwood
>|> Okay. Show me the other levels of capitalism. Show me how positive-sum
>|> transactions add up to zero-sum transactions. I am eager to learn.
>
>Well, here is my original posting again....
Yeah, I saw it. How does it prove zero-sum?
If I buy a copy of MS-DOS, I'm better off (because I can do things
that I couldn't do yesterday) and Bill Gates is better off (he has
a little bit more money, in place of a copy of MS-DOS for which he
has no use). Is that not true because Bill is richer than I am?
What if the pyramid were inverted, with a million billionaires,
exactly equal, and a single pauper? Would that imply something
different?
(The pyramid cannot be flat at the top because to be a billionaire
you must be unique somehow, so naturally the sizes of their
fortunes are unique too. In any game, be it chess or business,
there are many punters and few champions; one of the glories of
the free market is the great number of games.)
D. Anton Sherwood
I was finishing this!)
In article <2degdi$j...@darkstar.isi.edu> rle...@darkstar.isi.edu (Roger Lewis) writes:
>In article <dasherCH...@netcom.com> das...@netcom.com (D. Anton Sherwood) writes:
>>In article <2cef03$o...@darkstar.isi.edu> rle...@darkstar.isi.edu (Roger Lewis) writes:
>>>Those who have the most to spend are also composed of:
> [...]
>>>e) those who excel at overworking and underpaying their employees
>
>>Those who need not compete with other employers for those employees?
>
>Capitalism keeps a vast pool of unemployed workers available to keep the
>other workers worried about their survival. This vast pool of unemployed
>people assures that many employers need not compete with other employers.
Yeah, right. Capitalists fire people so they'll have someone to hire later?
Let's repeal the laws that cause unemployment (minimum wage, cartel licensing,
red tape etc). Then, you say, capitalism will collapse; I say the free
market will be healthier than ever. We both get what we want!
(Unemployment in Hong Kong, by the way, is negligible. Or so I hear.)
>>>f) those who can achieve monopolies and near monopolies. (It may be a free
>>> market, but if one person owns 95% of the oil deposits....).
>
>>Show me an example of a monopoly, or a near monopoly, that was not
>>created by the state.
>
>I can't, because to own 95% of oil deposits, one needs a government to enforce
>one's claims on those deposits. The state grants and protects land claims.
>One needs the state or some other form of government to enFORCE such claims.
>The state may or may not "create" any particular monopoly, but the state
>does provide the very foundation for achieving a monopoly by enFORCing
>laws designed to protect sole ownership of property. Such hoarding could not
>occur as easily if there were no laws and force structure to ensure that one
>can hold onto property as solely theirs.
That's only part of the picture. Where property is freely bought and sold,
any resource is divided among many owners. Look at the number of oil
companies in the USA -- and the number in Mexico, where oil is reserved
to the state. Monopolies appear only where the state intervenes
to "restore order" (as in the communications industry), usually because
some would-be monopolist finds he can't drive everyone else out of the
market by peaceful means and hires a politician to do it for him.
>>>Any Propertarian society is still going to have thieves, cheats, and liars.
>
>>And another won't? (Of course, without property theft is a virtue)
>
>You can't steal what isn't owned. :-)
>Theft is only theft because legislators have ordained the ways one can and
>can't gain possession of things, and threaten the full force of the government
>FORCEs to punish what has been deemed theft by those same legislators.
Even without the state, I will resist -- with force, if necessary -- attempts
to take away the things I have earned. In fact, most theft prevention is in
this mode.
>(Regarding Thieves Cheats and Liars):
>>>Some will be very successful and join that class that has the most to spend.
>
>>Utopia is not an option.
>
>Then why post to alt.society.anarchy? Utopia *IS* an option here.
In case you didn't know, "u.i.n.a.o." is a libertarian catch-phrase
meaning that no system can eliminate all risk of unfortunate results,
but ours minimizes the risk. (It's a catch-phrase that anyone could
use, in principle, but evidently non-libs don't want to admit it.)
For example, the benefits of free speech more than outweigh the cost
of tolerating some liars and cheats.
(Posting to a.s.anarchy wasn't my idea, by the way.)
John R. Moore
>In article <1993Nov25.1...@anasazi.com>, jo...@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
>|> Freedom comes from the lack of armed coercion. Power is a different matter.
>|> In modern corporations, as in any specialized organization or society, some
>|> people have more decision making power than others. However, the worker
>|> is free to go to another corporation or take the other choices I showed
>|> above. Furthermore, the "management" are also workers - all the way to
>|> the top their decisions are circumscribed by others. At the top of the
>|> pyramid are the investors, who are often fiduciaries for workers who
>|> have invested in pension funds or mutual funds, or who are ordinary people
>|> who have invested. Finally, there is the customer, who can make the whole
>|> pyramid come crashing down. Frequently the customer is the consumer!
>|>
>|> Finally, in a meritocracy (which corporations approach in the limit), a
>|> "worker" can become "management" or "capitalist."
>|>
>|> So your whining about freedom is really pretty silly in true capitalism.
>True capitalism, huh?
>Do you know what a sweat shop is?
Yes, it is a place where people, of their own free will, take jobs deemed
lousy by the standards of society.
>Do you know why strikebreakers exist?
Because they are freely willing to work for less than the strikers. What's
wrong with that?
>Capitalism is the freedom of those in power >to do anything they possibly can
>get away with in the name of profit.
This has been frequently refuted here on the net.
>That is
>capitalism. Your 'let them eat cake' attitude is really starting to
>piss me off.
Who has a "let them eat cake" attitude? You seem to have the attitude that
after I bake a cake, you should be allowed to take it all away and give
it to others, regardless of my desires.
--
DISCLAIMER: These views are mine alone, and do not reflect my employer's!
John Moore 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253 USA (602-951-9326)
jo...@anasazi.com Amateur call:NJ7E Civil Air Patrol:Thunderbird 381
- - A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality! - -
- - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
John R. Moore
This is a highly unrealistic view of capitalism. The idea that everyone
tries to sit on the shoulders of everyone else is true - that is what
all societies do: cooperate to hold up the standard of living. Capitalism
happens to use money, exchanged for goods in free exchanges
to allocate the resources. There is no "design" to cause this.
--
DISCLAIMER: These views are mine alone, and do not reflect my employer's!
John Moore 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253 USA (602-951-9326)
jo...@anasazi.com Amateur call:NJ7E Civil Air Patrol:Thunderbird 381
- Democracy is two wolves and a sheep using majority vote to decide what -
- to have for dinner. SUPPORT THE BILL OF RIGHTS - INCLUDING THE 2nd! -
John R. Moore
>In article <1993Nov29.1...@anasazi.com> jo...@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
>>das...@netcom.com (D. Anton Sherwood) writes:
>>>I am hinting at anarcho-capitalism, wherein law enforcement priorities
>>>are set by the people who hire the police. (I believe that not many
>>>would pay to rid the world of pornography.)
>>You would be unhappily surprised then. An amazing number of people are willing
>>to put amazing restrictions on others. Have you ever dealt with a homeowner's
>>association? This is a form of communal cooperation that has legal authority
>>over certain aspects of people's property. Homeowner's associations are
>>notorious for their willingness to spend their money to do stupid things.
>On NIMBY principles, but will they leave their own narrow turf to harass
>vice elsewhere?
They have no authority elsewhere. But I can tell you that many of them are
petty tyrants who are doing their thing because they get off on power, not
on just NIMBY principles. They demonstrate how dangerous people can get
when given just a tiny bit of power.
>>>The police/defense agencies
>>>that produce the best flavors of law will prosper. Should I elaborate?
>>Yes. I think you are dreaming. Who polices the police?
>Other police; the threat of competition; the same moral constraints
>that police in our society recognize, to some degree, even when they
>have no practical teeth.
Snicker.
>> What is the difference
>>between a private police force and a warlord's army?
>Scale; the nature of the customers; specialization. I would hire
>a firm skilled in small-scale defense; I would not hire a firm
>skilled in mass aggression. I don't think they are necesssarily
>related skills.
I would hire a firm skilled in mass agression, have them kill off all the
small-scale defenses, and end up controlling everything. End of your utopia.
>> Defense against a modern
>>nation requires more than a bunch of individual private entities - it
>>requires (sigh) central planning.
>I wish Robin Hanson were reading this. He wrote an interesting essay
>a while back which may refute that statement. Unfortunately I am not
>at liberty to repost it.
I would like to see it. I'd like to see a mostly anarchic group of libertarians
develop a nuclear bomb or an F-16 or an aircraft carrier.
--
DISCLAIMER: These views are mine alone, and do not reflect my employer's!
John Moore 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253 USA (602-951-9326)
jo...@anasazi.com Amateur call:NJ7E Civil Air Patrol:Thunderbird 381
- - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
- - It is not enough to be right. One must also be effective! - -
Lorraine Lee
...
>>|> Who is to judge necessity, if not the consumer?
>>
>>By consumer, you mean person, right? And yes, I agree. However that is
>>not what happens when money is involved. What happens is, the worker is
>>paid as little in return for his labour that the employer can possible
>>get away with.
>
>And I pay as little for my food as I can get away with. So?
So if market conditions put more downward pressure on the goin g price for your
labor than they put on the going price for your food and other needs, your
standard of living will go down. In cases where this happens do you consider
it a regrettable fact of life, or something with implications about the moral
virtues of the person whose standard of living is going to hell in a
handbasket?
>You, not I, are the one insisting on a class system. Workers
>and capitalists, sellers and consumers are all just trying to
>get the best value out of the resources they have to offer.
>The worker tries to get the most money for the least labor;
>the capitalist tries to get the most labor for the least money.
This is obvious enough. This is why employer/employee relationships are
correctly understood to be adversarial relationships.
>(Acting as the agent of the end consumer, I might add.)
No they aren't acting as the agent of the end consumer. They haggle with the
end consumer over prices, too. No relationship is immune from the adversarial
nature of competition.
>There is no "union" of employers conspiring to keep wages down,
>any more than there is a universal union of workers conspiring
>to keep wages up. Much as you would like to see both.
I'd much rather see unions replace employers as employers of workers.
>>|> Who is society, if not the aggregate of consumers?
>>
>>Depends on who you are. If you are one of the elite, then society is
>>the other elites. A class system doesnt recognize those on the lower
>>rungs as significant.
>
>If that is supposed to answer my question, I can't see how.
Society (when it functions as a marketplace) is an "openly elitist democracy".
Democracy because you get to vote. Elitist because the ballots aren't little
slips of paper that are handed out one per person, but slips of paper called
dollar bills. And openly because you'd have to be behind the 8 ball for a long
time to see it for anything other than what it is.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Lee
Lorraine Lee
>> I see it that
>>capitalism is designed to 'go wrong'. Its a system in which everybody
>>tries to sit on the shoulders of evrybody else, on a local or global
>>scale. This system might benefit some, but it is horrible for most
>>others.
>
>"The State is the great myth whereby everyone tries to live at the
>expense of everyone else." (Frederic Bastiat, paraphraed from memory)
>The market, on the other hand, is the great reality whereby everyone
>can live to the benefit of everyone else. In the market I benefit
>only by making someone else better off (in his/her own estimation).
The parenthetical remark is of vital importance as it's the reason there will
always be a niche for con artists and there will never be a niche for
introverted geniuses. This is reality. I'm not griping about it but I
wouldn't call it a "great" reality. I guess I'd call it the "prevailing
reality". Let's just say I try to sit back and take a level-headed view of
this reality that is the market. I try not to take it too seriously as a moral
arbiter. I accept the reality of it to the extent that it's something that
must be. But I question whether it must be.
>> the trouble is that the poeple on top have the power to
>>perpetuate the siutation.
>
>No they haven't, and that is why those at the top always try to use
>political (non-market) means to impair the free market so that they
>are kept on top. (See "The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality" by Ludwig
>von Mises.) An un-hobbled market is too fluid to assure anyone a
>permanent place in the pyramid.
An un-hobbled market (at least one un-hobbled enough to pass muster of those
who say "but the American statist quo isn't 'true capitalism'") is apparently
as utopian as any idea that has come from idealists. The supposed achievement
of "true capitalism" in prehistoric Iceland is about equally verifiable as the
achievement of "truly viable non-capitalism" by the Spanish trade union
federation CNT during the 1930's. Well, actually "utopian capitalism" (if you
can call it that, and I think you can) makes -some- concessions to the unsavory
Reality that is Human Nature. Basically they demonstrate that every facet of
human behavior is motivated by selfishness. Apparently this means perceived
self-interest, not operant stimuli, is what -determines- human behavior.
>Unlike any other order we've seen.
Lorraine Lee
...
>Well, if that is capitalism, then to hell with it. But some of us
>have more respect for the language than to apply "capitalism" to
>"anything I don't like".
You trivialize the language by defining capitalism as "all uncoerced activity"
and even include activity that is (obviously enough to me anyway) well outside
the realm of economics.
The most widely understood definition of capitalism is "private ownership of
capital". No more, no less.
Lorraine Lee
>In article <1993Nov29.1...@anasazi.com> jo...@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
>>Yes. I think you are dreaming. Who polices the police?
Who pays the piper?
>Other police; the threat of competition; the same moral constraints
>that police in our society recognize, to some degree, even when they
>have no practical teeth.
Police in our society are bound by legal constraints, not moral constraints.
Subscribers to the "thin blue line" theory of policing would tell you that
moral constraints have "practical teeth" only to the extent that the police
have practical teeth. Needless to say, anarchism (whether market-based or not
is irrelevant) by DEFINITION is an explicit rejection of the "thin blue line"
theory. You don't create anarchy, or even anarcho-capitalism simply by
"privatizing" the thin blue line that (supposedly) stands between us, and the
fact that life for people not under "adult supervision" is nasty, brutish and
short.
>> What is the difference
>>between a private police force and a warlord's army?
>
>Scale; the nature of the customers; specialization. I would hire
>a firm skilled in small-scale defense; I would not hire a firm
>skilled in mass aggression. I don't think they are necesssarily
>related skills.
Basically a difference in scale. The difference between the customer for a
security firm and the customer for a warlord's army is one of scale not of
nature. Protecting a storefront is a much smaller-scale project than
protecting 10% of the land area of a small country. The concept is the same,
protecting the haves from people who have more respect for aggression (mass or
small-scale agression as the case may be) than they have for "property lines".
Roger Lewis
>In article <2deh6v$j...@darkstar.isi.edu> rle...@darkstar.isi.edu (Roger Lewis) writes:
>>In article <dasherCH...@netcom.com> das...@netcom.com (D. Anton Sherwood) writes:
>>>In article <2ciiid$k...@oak.oakland.edu> w2...@argo.acs.oakland.edu writes:
>>>I wish we could all live like gods without toil. I wish I didn't have
>>>reason to think I need to lock my door. I wish I didn't have to floss
>>>my teeth.
>>>I'm not getting my wish. But every capitalist brings me a hair's breadth
>>>nearer to getting it, not farther away.
>>How does every Capitalist bring you nearer to not needing to lock your door?
>Oops, I missed that. Well, some capitalist will make a fortune selling
>smart locks that recognize their owners. ;)
In which case, you'll see a trend towards Robbery instead of Burglary.
The rise in carjackings has been attributed to the increasing sophistication
of car alarms and upon the trend of more and more cars to have the alarms.
>>Capitalism CAUSES crime. The more propertarian society is, the greater is
>>the reward for theft. The more socialist a society is, the less reward there
>>is for "theft".
>That's true, because the more socialist a society is, the poorer it is.
>But it also has more opportunity for theft, and less for honest earning.
Hmm, how many socialist societies have you witnessed where the rulers weren't
tapping societies wealth to line their own pockets. There were mansions in
the USSR just as in the U.S. There were perhaps more mansions in the US,
and also more people living in the streets and going healthy.
Capitalism *MAY* provide a more vibrant economy for a government parasite
to feed off, but I suspect the more democratic a society is, (socialist
or capitalist) the less poor it will be. I don't read about people
starving in the streets of Sweden. I'm under the impression that most
people would consider Sweden a socialist democracy.
>>No one ever robbed a bank to pay for medicine in a society that provides
>>free health care.
>Hah. Ever heard of shortages, rationing and black markets?
I meant my sentence literally. I didn't say that no one ever robbed a bank
to pay for medicine in a society that FAILS to provide free health care.
I said "No one ever robbed a bank to pay for medicine in a society that
PROVIDES free health care".
Shortages, rationing and black markets occur don't occur if you PROVIDE
free health care. They can of course occur if you FAIL to provide it.
Roger Lewis
>Hmm, how many socialist societies have you witnessed where the rulers weren't
>tapping societies wealth to line their own pockets. There were mansions in
>the USSR just as in the U.S. There were perhaps more mansions in the US,
>and also more people living in the streets and going healthy.
^
|
hungry
I meant to type hungry rather than healthy.
D. Anton Sherwood
>In article <dasherCH...@netcom.com>, das...@netcom.com (D. Anton Sherwood) writes:
>>can live to the benefit of everyone else. In the market I benefit
>>only by making someone else better off (in his/her own estimation).
>
>The parenthetical remark is of vital importance as it's the reason there will
>always be a niche for con artists and there will never be a niche for
>introverted geniuses. This is reality.
So, it always pays to be well informed. Seems to me that's true
whatever the order of things. (It pays less in voting than
in the market, because of externalities, which is why market
services are in general better than government services.)
>> An un-hobbled market is too fluid to assure anyone a
>>permanent place in the pyramid.
>
>An un-hobbled market (at least one un-hobbled enough to pass muster of those
>who say "but the American statist quo isn't 'true capitalism'") is apparently
>as utopian as any idea that has come from idealists.
Perhaps, but my remark here has backing even in the USA -- something like
3/4 of the top quintile in 1990 were not in the top quintile in 1980.
(Can someone cite the actual number and source?)
D. Anton Sherwood
>You trivialize the language by defining capitalism as "all uncoerced activity"
>and even include activity that is (obviously enough to me anyway) well outside
>the realm of economics.
What activity is outside the realm of economics?
What activity does not have the goal of obtaining some benefit?
>The most widely understood definition of capitalism is "private ownership of
>capital". No more, no less.
Fine by me. I'll stop using "capitalism" to mean "the free market"
if others will stop using "capitalism" to mean "crony oligopolies enforced
by statism".
D. Anton Sherwood
>In article <dasherCH...@netcom.com>, das...@netcom.com (D. Anton Sherwood) writes:
>>In article <1993Nov29.2...@trl.oz.au> s.ma...@trl.oz.au writes:
>>> What happens is, the worker is
>>>paid as little in return for his labour that the employer can possible
>>>get away with.
>>
>>And I pay as little for my food as I can get away with. So?
>
>So if market conditions put more downward pressure on the goin g price for your
>labor than they put on the going price for your food and other needs, your
>standard of living will go down. In cases where this happens do you consider
>it a regrettable fact of life, or something with implications about the moral
>virtues of the person whose standard of living is going to hell in a
>handbasket?
I call it an unfortunate temporary reverse in a centuries-long
trend of improvement.
>>The worker tries to get the most money for the least labor;
>>the capitalist tries to get the most labor for the least money.
>
>This is obvious enough. This is why employer/employee relationships are
>correctly understood to be adversarial relationships.
>
>>(Acting as the agent of the end consumer, I might add.)
>
>No they aren't acting as the agent of the end consumer. They haggle with the
>end consumer over prices, too. No relationship is immune from the adversarial
>nature of competition.
BZZT! Thank you for playing. The relation of buyer with seller
(and an employer is just a buyer of labor, so we can dispense with
special terminology) is essentially cooperative: both sides get
benefit from it, or they'd abstain. Haggling is just negotiation
over division of the total net benefit. That is, if our total
wealth is increased by $2 if we do the deal, we are negotiating
to divide that $2 between you and me.
In negotiating wages (or prices for any other factor of
production), the employer is the agent of the end consumer
in the sense that the price that the consumer is willing to pay
determines what the employer can pay in wages, and thus determines
what field of labor is most valued (pays best).
The buyer is not competing with the seller -- the buyer is competing
with other buyers, and the seller is competing with other sellers.
(This is made explicit when the seller says "If you won't buy at my
price, someone else will," or the buyer says "If you won't sell
at my price, someone else will.") The competitive aspect of the
negotiation game cannot mask the essential cooperative nature of
the transaction. If haggling results in a price at which one party
or the other gets no net benefit from the transaction, THERE IS NO
TRANSACTION.
Now, if the transaction is controlled by politics (e.g. price controls
and restrictions on who may enter the market), then buyers do compete
with sellers to control the political process for their (short-term)
benefit.
>>There is no "union" of employers conspiring to keep wages down,
>>any more than there is a universal union of workers conspiring
>>to keep wages up. Much as you would like to see both.
>
>I'd much rather see unions replace employers as employers of workers.
Yeah, because then a worker would not have the option of changing
employers (without changing trades), and the employment relation
would become truly adversarial -- and you'd be right for a change.
>>>|> Who is society, if not the aggregate of consumers?
>>>
>>>Depends on who you are. If you are one of the elite, then society is
>>>the other elites. A class system doesnt recognize those on the lower
>>>rungs as significant.
>>
>>If that is supposed to answer my question, I can't see how.
>
>Society (when it functions as a marketplace) is an "openly elitist democracy".
>Democracy because you get to vote. Elitist because the ballots aren't little
>slips of paper that are handed out one per person, but slips of paper called
>dollar bills. And openly because you'd have to be behind the 8 ball for a long
>time to see it for anything other than what it is.
"Winning" a dollar-vote means giving it up to the "loser". Funny kind
of elitism. Democracy, on the other hand, creates a true elitism of
the majority:
"The analogy between spending and voting ... is imperfect. Equality
aside, spending is a much superior--paradoxically, a much more egalitarian--
way of allocating resources. This is because a dollar, once spent, cannot
be spent again, leaving you less to spend on something else. Your vote can
be used over and over.
"Contrast the relationship between two men, one having an income of
$10,000 a year and one of $5,000, with the relationship between two men, one
part of a political faction with ten votes, one part of a faction with five.
"Bidding for necessities, the richer man outbids the poorer; if
there were only enugh food on the market for one man, it would be the poorer
who would starve. But when the richer man is bidding for luxuries and the
poorer man for necessities, the poorer man wins. Suppose the richer man,
having bought enough flour to make bread for himself, wishes to buy the rest
of the flour on the market to make papier-mache for his children's Halloween
masks. The poorer man still does not have anything to eat; he is willing to
use as much of his income as necessary to bid for the flour. He gets the
flour, and at much less than $5,000. The richer man already has used half
his income buying flour for bread (since there too, he was bidding against
the poor). His remaining income is barely equal to that of the poorer man,
and he certainly is not going to spend all of it, or even a substantial
fraction, for Halloween masks.
"Now consider the same situation with votes. The man with the
larger faction votes to have the flour given to him (and his allies) for
bread. Then he votes to have the remaining flour given to them for making
papier-mache. He wins both times, ten to five. Since voting is much more
of an all-or-nothing thing than spending, such inequalities as do exist have
much greater effects. This may explain why in our society, where the poor
are also politically weak, they do far worse on things provided by the
government, such as schooling and police protection, than on those sold
privately, such as food and clothes."
--David Friedman: THE MACHINERY OF FREEDOM, chapter 27
Steven Mathers
|> >|> >
|> >|> >. My view is that each
|> >|> >`worker' should receive an equal return from society for their
|> >|> >contribution to it. The value of their work being judged on its
|> >|> >neccessity to society.
|>
|> If everyone's return is to be equal, why bother judging its value
|> or necessity?
The only value I put on work is whether or not it is essential. Most
occupations are essential I think. Occupations to do with money such as
advertising, banking etc I can happily do away with.
|> >|> Who is to judge necessity, if not the consumer?
|> >
|> >By consumer, you mean person, right? And yes, I agree. However that is
|> >not what happens when money is involved. What happens is, the worker is
|> >paid as little in return for his labour that the employer can possible
|> >get away with.
|>
|> And I pay as little for my food as I can get away with. So?
So...theoreticaly capitalism is supposed to be a good system for
everybody because everybody fighting for their fair share will somehow
end up all right. I screw you, you screw me. Trouble is, it doesnt
work as advertised -- but then again, what does?
|> >|> Who is society, if not the aggregate of consumers?
|> >
|> >Depends on who you are. If you are one of the elite, then society is
|> >the other elites. A class system doesnt recognize those on the lower
|> >rungs as significant.
|>
|> If that is supposed to answer my question, I can't see how.
Here is my definition of society. You can supply me with yours:
A collection of individuals cooperating for the good of all.
Steve Mathers
s.ma...@trl.oz.au
Steven Mathers
|> > I see it that
|> >capitalism is designed to 'go wrong'. Its a system in which everybody
|> >tries to sit on the shoulders of evrybody else, on a local or global
|> >scale. This system might benefit some, but it is horrible for most
|> >others.
|>
|> "The State is the great myth whereby everyone tries to live at the
|> expense of everyone else." (Frederic Bastiat, paraphraed from memory)
|> The market, on the other hand, is the great reality whereby everyone
|> can live to the benefit of everyone else. In the market I benefit
|> only by making someone else better off (in his/her own estimation).
Rubbish. I dont need to theorize about the validity of that statement.
All I have to do is look at the world.
|>
|> > the trouble is that the poeple on top have the power to
|> >perpetuate the siutation.
|>
|> No they haven't, and that is why those at the top always try to use
|> political (non-market) means to impair the free market so that they
|> are kept on top. (See "The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality" by Ludwig
|> von Mises.) An un-hobbled market is too fluid to assure anyone a
|> permanent place in the pyramid.
Another free-market fallacy.
Jay Shorten
>Okay. Show me the other levels of capitalism. Show me how positive-sum
>transactions add up to zero-sum transactions. I am eager to learn.
Well, since every transaction is zero-sum (for every transaction there is a
winner and a loser--see my previous post), then 0 times any number is always 0.
Jay Shorten
jsho...@julian.uwo.ca
Graduate School of Library and Information Science
University of Western Ontario