Thread: Q&A with Dejavu : Focus - free enterprise, trade, mutualism, capitalism, etc.

Results 21 to 40 of 45

  1. #21
    Join Date Feb 2009
    Posts 426
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    No, that is not individualism at all. I don't assume this. Individualism promotes the opposite. Each individual is unique to an extent and has her own value scales.
    So, how can you you "know" each individual's value scales, which you admit are different from individual to individual, while calculating marginal utility?
    I've noticed economics is not your forte but that's ok.
    It doesn't need to be. Economics is as valid a field of study as witchcraft IMHO.
    Well, I could be wrong. Its just that before you gave me the impression that you are tied to only one way of thinking. I'll gladly stand corrected though.
    Clearly, as I said before, I reject both LToV and Marginalism.

    Though I haven't read it, I think Debunking Economics by Steve Keen is a good book to read for a thorough debunking of economics, not to mention the anarchist FAQ in my sig below, for a great summary.
  2. #22
    Join Date Nov 2002
    Location somewhere else
    Posts 6,139
    Organisation
    Angry Anarchists Anonymous
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Who will build the roads?

    More seriously: If someone loses their job and becomes homeless (for any reason), where are they to go with privitized infastructure and no home? They can't exactly sleep on the streets if they have to deposit 50 cents for every street they go to.

    The same question (well, the roads part) applies to Mutualism.

    2. How will private law be enforced?
    I can't answer for Dejavu, however, I can answer for myself.

    I don't believe that everything would be privitised, because it simply wouldn't work. (The example you give is good, where will the homeless sleep.)

    But, more to the point, privitised roads don't fit in the "usage as ownership" notion. A single person can't monopolise a road all the time, or even a significant majority of the time*. They also can't produce anything with it.

    Thus, the community would build the roads (or, arrange for it to be done), as the community as a whole uses the roads.

    There isn't anything in individualist anarchist theory that I know of that rejects community ownership of common goods.

    *(A race track or similar is an example where one person can use a road to the exclusion of others, however, I assume we are talking public roads. Also, unless one person is driving on that track all the time, there is no reason, in my mind, why others couldn't use it when that one person isn't.)

    A potentially useful thread for some people:
    http://www.revleft.com/vb/defending-...371/index.html
  3. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to apathy maybe For This Useful Post:


  4. #23
    Join Date Apr 2002
    Location Northern Europe
    Posts 11,176
    Organisation
    NTL
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    if I have a house , and a front yard, can anyone just come and set up a picnic bbq on the front yard of my house?
    Why do you need ownership for use?
  5. #24
    Join Date Feb 2008
    Posts 834
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    So, how can you you "know" each individual's value scales, which you admit are different from individual to individual, while calculating marginal utility?
    It doesn't need to be. Economics is as valid a field of study as witchcraft IMHO.
    Clearly, as I said before, I reject both LToV and Marginalism.

    Though I haven't read it, I think Debunking Economics by Steve Keen is a good book to read for a thorough debunking of economics, not to mention the anarchist FAQ in my sig below, for a great summary.
    The point is that you don't know. You can only make a reasonable guess. You begin to find out through a cost/benefit feedback though. If I want to make X, it requires me to invest certain resources in X , the cost is not being able to make Y instead with the same resources. Then I can determine that I have allocated resources efficiently. Why? Well I know the costs and I can compare X to Y. In a state governed project based on central planning, it is impossible to know the costs and thus there is nothing to compare whether what you are doing yields a net benefit or loss. Similarly, if people don't trade that much for X and the net cost is greater than the benefit, then I have inefficiently allocated resources and will end up losing even more unless I change the uses for those resources.

    Actually, and I'm sure you agree with me, that since it is virtually impossible to know the value scales of each individual in society, central planning ( i.e. a few individuals pretending to know what is most highly valued by most) is far more nonsensical.
  6. #25
    Join Date Feb 2008
    Posts 834
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    I can't answer for Dejavu, however, I can answer for myself.

    I don't believe that everything would be privitised, because it simply wouldn't work. (The example you give is good, where will the homeless sleep.)
    I don't think everything would be privatized either. Similarly, I don't think everything would be collectivized. People do not work this way to be on one total extreme or the other.

    But, more to the point, privitised roads don't fit in the "usage as ownership" notion. A single person can't monopolise a road all the time, or even a significant majority of the time*. They also can't produce anything with it.
    Maybe. I don't don't think most roads will be privatized but that is not the same as a private road or personally owned road ( I think the term 'private' is way too loaded). I would be careful suggesting universal restrictions on ownership as rigid as only 'use and occupancy' without it even being clearly defined. If one speaks of an anarchist society then the more universal restrictions you lay down that means ( at least to me) that one can be inferring that such restrictions are both universally and legitimately enforceable. If one wishes to see all people observe a particular restriction in society then I don't see how that would not necessitate a governing body to 'oversee' that the restriction is being followed and hence, incompatible with just about every definition of anarchism I know of.

    Thus, the community would build the roads (or, arrange for it to be done), as the community as a whole uses the roads.
    That is certainly an option and I think would be preferable in terms of thoroughfares connecting various community functions.

    There isn't anything in individualist anarchist theory that I know of that rejects community ownership of common goods.
    Correct. I don't know of any individualist anarchists the explicitly reject common or personal property. Both are feasible.

    *(A race track or similar is an example where one person can use a road to the exclusion of others, however, I assume we are talking public roads. Also, unless one person is driving on that track all the time, there is no reason, in my mind, why others couldn't use it when that one person isn't.)

    A potentially useful thread for some people:
    http://www.revleft.com/vb/defending-...371/index.html
    Aside from that, if a person builds a road for the purpose of public use using his own capital for the construction, I don't see why he would in his right mind exclude others from using it since that goes directly against his intended purpose.

    That means he also has to bare the costs of exclusivity. So let say someone builds a long , pimped out road. Part of the costs of exclusivity is enforcing that. So as the ancaps would say, he 'pays an agency' to oversee his road. Well then, the road just becomes a huge , pointless liability. Why would anyone build anything for the express purpose of having that construction drain their own wealth? I just don't see people operating this way and plus, why could not the community or another individual build roads that would benefit society which people would use instead of the guy that wants an exclusive road? Then like an idiot , the guy that built the exclusive road is baring the total costs of a road lol. I wouldn't be angry at the guy , I'd laugh at him. But most people don't operate this way.

    Edit: My main point is whether someone is externalizing costs with their ownership over something. If all costs are internalized (i.e. not forcefully externalized) then I see nothing morally wrong with ownership of something like a road or a baseball mitt. If one's ownership over a thing necessitates forced externalization of costs then I don't consider that ownership justified.
  7. #26
    Join Date Feb 2008
    Posts 834
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Why do you need ownership for use?
    I don't know what else you would call it TBH? Can a person buy/sell her home including the front yard that is a part of it?
  8. #27
    Join Date Feb 2009
    Posts 426
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Combined with their analysis of the 'laws of supply', economists argue that that is how prices are set and should be set to maximise profit. Capitalists, unfortunately, have more sense than to listen to economists; one study showed that 95% of examined businesses did not set price where marginal cost equals marginal revenue (Eiteman and Guthrie, 1952) - that is the empirical worth of marginalism for you.
    http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...8&postcount=23

    These firms set price, not by passively reacting to the market, but by setting a price prior to sales, based on a markup on costs at a target rate of output. Means described these as ‘administered’ prices, with an essential feature of this system being that prices were set to maintain the long-term viability of the firm. This, and the underlying reality that per-unit costs fell as output levels rose, resulted in far more stable prices than were predicted by traditional economic theory (since if price was set by intersecting supply and demand curves, the ‘jiggling of the market’ as demand and supply curves ‘shifted’ should result in frequent price fluctuations). Means concluded that administered prices “differ so sharply from the behaviour to be expected from [neo]classical theory as to challenge the basic conclusions of that theory” (Means 1972).
    http://www.debunkingeconomics.com/Va...tual/Index.htm

    In other words, almost all of the capitalists of today do not follow marginalism. Any analysis should begin with a descriptive of how the current system works. The descriptive part of a market theory (how current markets work) would ideally involve a survey of all business owners and managers to see how their businesses are managed by them. Clearly such surveys indicate that marginal utility is not used in price setting. So, marginal costs are not in fact used anywhere in most (95%) of the businesses. Thus, marginal theory falls flat on its face when it comes to descriptiveness.

    As far as a prescriptive analysis (how markets should work) is concerned, if you haven't got the basics right: how the markets work currently, why should anybody listen to your prescription for how things should work?
  9. The Following User Says Thank You to GracchusBabeuf For This Useful Post:


  10. #28
    Join Date May 2008
    Location Regno de Granda Fenviko
    Posts 2,336
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    What is capital? (For the Marxist capital is the social relation involved in the self-expansion of value: the production, appropriation and accumulation of surplus value.)

    Also, the era of the market economy is behind us, followed by that of commercial capital, industrial capital and financial capital. How do you respond to the notion that it is highly unlikely that we will ever see the era of the market economy again?
    Last edited by trivas7; 9th May 2009 at 22:58. Reason: addendum
    Eppur si muove -- Galileo Galilei


    [FONT=Tahoma]
    [/FONT]
  11. #29
    Join Date Apr 2002
    Location Northern Europe
    Posts 11,176
    Organisation
    NTL
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    I don't know what else you would call it TBH? Can a person buy/sell her home including the front yard that is a part of it?
    Do you need to own your toothbrush? How about your socks?

    The only reason homeownership is nessesary in todays world is not because people are gonna break in and live in your house. its because of the Market value behind it and Investment potential, which is clearly a Capitalistic phenomenon.

    But I want to know the justification for land ownership. You walk on a land and say from here to here is my land, and no one can do anything on it but me or with my permission. Where does the right to do that come from?
  12. #30
    Join Date Apr 2007
    Posts 2,334
    Rep Power 23

    Default

    The need for privacy compels us to make laws regarding the use of dwellings and attached property (land). Survey markers and fences are here to stay. Ownership could be replaced with "occupants' rights".
  13. #31
    Join Date Jan 2009
    Posts 642
    Rep Power 13

    Default

    how would you address the general inefficiency of markets and the danger of market failures? particularly under a system lacking a central authority able to enact large scale changes and remedies in times of crisis.
  14. #32
    Join Date Apr 2009
    Location Earth
    Posts 4,020
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    how would you address the general inefficiency of markets and the danger of market failures? particularly under a system lacking a central authority able to enact large scale changes and remedies in times of crisis.
    How would you prove that the so-called inneficiencies of the markets and the danger of market failures are a consequence of a completely free market in the first place?
  15. #33
    Join Date Jan 2009
    Posts 642
    Rep Power 13

    Default

    How would you prove that the so-called inneficiencies of the markets and the danger of market failures are a consequence of a completely free market in the first place?
    well the entire idea of a market equilibrium is inaccurate. it makes the massive assumptions that information is symmetrical in all instances, and that social good = personal good and social cost = personal cost. free market fundamentalists generally ignore both the external effects of market transactions, and the existence of systemic risk in highly developed markets. they also ignore the far from perfectly rational tendencies of human behavior, and how any economic developments can send mixed or unclear messages, making perfectly efficient investing or consumption impossible.

    in short: "The reason the invisible hand often seems invisible is that it is not there."
  16. #34
    Join Date Apr 2009
    Location Earth
    Posts 4,020
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    well the entire idea of a market equilibrium is inaccurate. it makes the massive assumptions that information is symmetrical in all instances, and that social good = personal good and social cost = personal cost. free market fundamentalists generally ignore both the external effects of market transactions, and the existence of systemic risk in highly developed markets. they also ignore the far from perfectly rational tendencies of human behavior, and how any economic developments can send mixed or unclear messages, making perfectly efficient investing or consumption impossible.

    in short: "The reason the invisible hand often seems invisible is that it is not there."
    Information needs not be "symmetrical"-whatever the hell that means. Information is vital because it is where the actions of individuals are based. Maybe you are referring to cases where businesses might cheat to sell their products. But, if after they sell, it is clear that the product is bad or harmful, demand will lower and the company will go bankrupt unless they improve their product.

    Rather than imposing on everyone a common goal, the free market allows people to supply for different individual self-interests. The cost is assumed by the investors and it is the consumer who decides if he wants to get the product or not.

    You should also stop using "crutch" words such as "external effects" and "systemic risk". Just explain what you mean by those terms so it is easier to understand. By external efects i assume you are mentioning how effects of transactions that affect third parties, such as the negative effects of pollution are a failure of free markets. First define what is an externality. On this case particularly, it can be solved by private or communal ownership of those natural resources, so if a company pollutes and harms someone indirectly by polluting, the matter should be taken to court, or in the case of a completely free market, to private arbitration agencies (but that is another very long story).
    Also, just remmembered, Externalities play a far greater role in institutions controlled by voting. If i invest time and energy in finding the right candidate, the benefit of that investment, if any, is spread evenly among 200 million people. That is an externality of 99.999995%. Unless it is obvious how i should vote, it is not worth the time and trouble to vote "intelligently", except on issues where i get a disproportinately large fraction of the benefit. Situations, in other words, where i am part of a special interest.

    "they also ignore the far from perfectly rational tendencies of human behavior, and how any economic developments can send mixed or unclear messages, making perfectly efficient investing or consumption impossible."

    If you assume that tendencies of human behavior are far from rational, then surely you do not advocate the current system where people VOTE and thus CONTROL what other people can do or not do. I mean, it is surely better for people to take their own money and decide by themselves, and only by themselves, what they want to do with that money, so long as they not prevent anyone from using their money as they wish. LIke I said, the free market allows for everyone "to go to hell in their own way", which means they can do what they want and buy what they want and do what they want so long as they do not go against the lives, liberty or property of others. In essence, if you want something, buy it.
    To speculate is human; to hedge, divine
  17. #35
    Join Date Jan 2009
    Posts 642
    Rep Power 13

    Default

    Information needs not be "symmetrical"-whatever the hell that means. Information is vital because it is where the actions of individuals are based. Maybe you are referring to cases where businesses might cheat to sell their products. But, if after they sell, it is clear that the product is bad or harmful, demand will lower and the company will go bankrupt unless they improve their product.
    information being symmetrical means being perfectly complete for both parties - this is impossible. when making an economic decision, i can never know the exact ramifications of that actions and of the product or service i may be purchasing. government regulation has helped a little bit on the demand side, but it has still not solved the problem entirely. likewise, insurance companies (or the like) can never know all of the information about me, and subsequently offer me the simple market clearing price for service even if i am a shitty driver or a chain smoker. in this case, if i get in multiple car crashes or if i contract lung cancer, the insurance company pays for it; which means every other buyer of that insurance company pays for it. asymmetric information leads to generally inefficient market outcomes.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_asymmetry
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_selection

    Rather than imposing on everyone a common goal, the free market allows people to supply for different individual self-interests. The cost is assumed by the investors and it is the consumer who decides if he wants to get the product or not.
    my analysis is a purely economic one. i am not addressing ethical or philosophical issues, and i have not proposed any totalitarian alternative to market economics.

    You should also stop using "crutch" words such as "external effects" and "systemic risk". Just explain what you mean by those terms so it is easier to understand.
    systemic risk means "the risk of collapse for an entire financial system or entire market, as opposed to risk associated with any one individual entity, group or component of a system."

    basically if there is a collapse in one market (or cost push inflation or a monopoly), then it will affect numerous other markets. basically if a single market (the market for carrots for example) drifts away from "market equilibrium" for whatever reason, then that will have a negative effect on other markets and the economy as a whole. so when you make simplistic statements like "when there's too much supply, the demand readjusts" you're ignoring systemic risk.

    and if you don't believe in systemic risk, how's the world economy doing right now? oh yeah how did that start?

    By external efects i assume you are mentioning how effects of transactions that affect third parties, such as the negative effects of pollution are a failure of free markets.
    yeah pretty much.

    First define what is an externality. On this case particularly, it can be solved by private or communal ownership of those natural resources, so if a company pollutes and harms someone indirectly by polluting, the matter should be taken to court, or in the case of a completely free market, to private arbitration agencies (but that is another very long story).
    1) it's not always that simple. you can't just "take someone to court" because they made bad business decisions and destroyed a financial market or because they're a smoker and they drive up health insurance. also, externalities can be positive.

    2) in your example, now court costs have to be paid, and the victim loses the money for paying the defense agency and he loses the utility (time) from the whole ordeal.

    If you assume that tendencies of human behavior are far from rational, then surely you do not advocate the current system where people VOTE and thus CONTROL what other people can do or not do.
    i don't really. do you deny that people do dumb things in the financial markets? and do you deny that these decisions have ramifications for those who weren't even a part of that decision?

    I mean, it is surely better for people to take their own money and decide by themselves, and only by themselves, what they want to do with that money, so long as they not prevent anyone from using their money as they wish. LIke I said, the free market allows for everyone "to go to hell in their own way", which means they can do what they want and buy what they want and do what they want so long as they do not go against the lives, liberty or property of others. In essence, if you want something, buy it.
    it really isn't that simple. and by the way, i'm not arguing for totalitarianism here, i'm simply arguing that the efficiency of markets is generally overstated. markets free from regulation or safety nets in particular are very dangerous and unstable, and can lead to disastrous outcomes.

    btw, so far you're only point has been a misguided argument for libertarian ethics. i'm simply arguing markets' efficiency from an analytical economic standpoint, not a theoretical or philosophical one.
  18. #36
    Join Date Apr 2002
    Location Northern Europe
    Posts 11,176
    Organisation
    NTL
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    The need for privacy compels us to make laws regarding the use of dwellings and attached property (land). Survey markers and fences are here to stay.
    Why would privacy be a problem without land ownership rights? What senareo would make land rights neccesary for privacy?
  19. #37
    Join Date Apr 2009
    Location Earth
    Posts 4,020
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    information being symmetrical means being perfectly complete for both parties - this is impossible. when making an economic decision, i can never know the exact ramifications of that actions and of the product or service i may be purchasing. government regulation has helped a little bit on the demand side, but it has still not solved the problem entirely. likewise, insurance companies (or the like) can never know all of the information about me, and subsequently offer me the simple market clearing price for service even if i am a shitty driver or a chain smoker. in this case, if i get in multiple car crashes or if i contract lung cancer, the insurance company pays for it; which means every other buyer of that insurance company pays for it. asymmetric information leads to generally inefficient market outcomes.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_asymmetry
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_selection
    I think you are leaving an important part behind: Market "forces" that compensate for that information assymetry. Rating businesses, magazines, internet forums, websites, etc all can delivery very important information that can re-balance the amount of information a consumer gets before he decides to buy a product. And all of them can make a greater profit the more their information is accurate.

    my analysis is a purely economic one. i am not addressing ethical or philosophical issues, and i have not proposed any totalitarian alternative to market economics.
    If your analysis is purely economic, then i take it you expect the best system to bring more wealth to everyone, raise the standard of living, education, health and freedom. So i think it is best to see how those things have been going over time, at a "largely free" market system.

    Infant mortality USA
    Life expectancy at birth vs Income per person (animated graph, choose date then press play)
    Literacy rate per country
    Educational attainment in the USA

    Literacy rates and educational attainment can be argued that are not a result from the free market, which i partly agree, since the funding for public schools, which are mandatory, is through tax.

    systemic risk means "the risk of collapse for an entire financial system or entire market, as opposed to risk associated with any one individual entity, group or component of a system."

    basically if there is a collapse in one market (or cost push inflation or a monopoly), then it will affect numerous other markets. basically if a single market (the market for carrots for example) drifts away from "market equilibrium" for whatever reason, then that will have a negative effect on other markets and the economy as a whole. so when you make simplistic statements like "when there's too much supply, the demand readjusts" you're ignoring systemic risk.

    and if you don't believe in systemic risk, how's the world economy doing right now? oh yeah how did that start?
    I never intended to make simplistic statements as "when there's too much supply, demand readjusts". The truth is, when there is too much supply, prices go down in an attempt to increase demand.

    And on the matter of the current crisis, i've adressed the issue here

    FACTS
    -2000+: housing prices rose enormously
    -Second quarter 2006: steep decline in prices
    -Third quarter 2006: mortgage defaults shoot up
    -mid 2007: financial system, which had heavily invested in securitized mortgages, began to collapse.
    -Foreign economic systems, which had also bought many of these products began to experience unprecedented losses
    -government bailouts, nationalizations, etc

    can't post links yet, so look up graphs on the price evolution since 1980s to current days to see how it progressed

    Mortgage Failures: Occurred in a strong economy and before housing prices have fallen signifficantly

    foreclosures occured at same time and at the same pace in both prime and subprime markets.

    Anyway, to what really matters:

    Market Failure?

    4 central causes of financial crisis (which have nothing to do with free market):
    -Fiat money
    -Low interest rates
    -forced loans to high risk borrowers
    -government loan guarantees

    Fiat money: in 1971 us dollar was taken off the gold standard, which means the dollars isn't backed up by nothing except government saying so. you cannot redeem it by gold or silver like it was once, and is essentially a piece of paper.

    Low interest rates:
    high housing prices+ artificially low interest rates (by the Fed) = rampant speculation (25% of house purchases were for "flipping")

    Forced loans: if you're a banker you are conservative to whom you lend money, because if that person doesn't pay back, your business WILL collapse. So why have these high risk lendings occured?

    In 1934, after the great depression, government created the Federal Housing Administration, which guaranteed mortgages and thus eliminated the bank's risk for high risk lendings.

    in 1938 Fannie Mae was created to purchase these mortgages

    then in the 70s, you have the Community reinvestment act, which "is a United States federal law designed to encourage commercial banks and savings associations to meet the needs of borrowers in all segments of their communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. Congress passed the Act in 1977 to reduce discriminatory credit practices against low-income neighborhoods, a practice known as redlining." This means they had to do business without taking into consideration of the geography, whether it was downtown, suburbs, etc

    then you have the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975, where they had to reveal private information to whom they were lending this, and then the government would score that information on CRA compliance.

    and in 1991 you have government requiring banks to submit racial statistics and then accusing banks of prejudice in case (and im in no way trying to collectivize people here) they were discriminating against blacks whom they thought might not be able to pay back the lending.

    Anyway, how did the government force the banks to go by these new regulations?
    "Liability for punitive damages can be as much as $10 000 in individual actions and the lesser of $500 000 or 1% of the creditors network in class actions"

    So banks are no longer allowed to use credit history, ratios of income to mortgage payments, and have to accept "credit counseling" as proof of financial ability, as well as unverified income statements. They also have to accept gifts, welfare and unemployment benefits, and other one-time for short term "incomes" as collateral.

    Speculation

    As prices kept low, defaults stay low, because no one defaults when he can sell the house at a profit.
    But as i've already explained, as soon as prices decline, defaults rise, and interest rates begin to increase, as well as variable mortgage payments.

    When demand is artificially stimulated, resource allocators get the wrong price signals, and then labor and capital are invested in those sectors of housing and building.

    I think this is a more detailed way of explaining how this happened instead of just saying: GREED CAUSED THIS, because if that were the case, wouldn't we be in perpetual crisis?
    1) it's not always that simple. you can't just "take someone to court" because they made bad business decisions and destroyed a financial market or because they're a smoker and they drive up health insurance. also, externalities can be positive.

    2) in your example, now court costs have to be paid, and the victim loses the money for paying the defense agency and he loses the utility (time) from the whole ordeal.
    1)Trying to resolve a dispute peacefully is surely better than to use violence. If bad business decisions affect my life (health), liberty (condition my liberty, eg: enslavement) or property (damage my property) then it's ok? should they not at least pay the amount necessary to put me back in the condition before any harm was done to me?

    If passive smoking is indeed harmful, then smokers can no longer smoke in areas where the smoke can harm people unwillingly. However, they could smoke in establishments that allowed smoking (instead of the current method where everywhere is forbidden to smoke).

    2) in the latter example courts are not payed directly by victims, but by the protection agencies whom the people contracted with, which in turn had already contracted with the courts:

    people->protection agency->courts

    <the victim is only putting time and money into the effort so he/she can resolve the dispute which has either harmed his/her life, liberty or property. The victim pays the protection agency in the first place to protect him/her in situations like these.

    i don't really. do you deny that people do dumb things in the financial markets? and do you deny that these decisions have ramifications for those who weren't even a part of that decision?
    People do dumb things everywhere. Markets prove a better way for not letting other people's stupid deccisions harm other people more, unlike the current voting system. Every decision has ramifications as well, so if a decision ends up affecting someone negatively, that person now has the right to be supplied with what is necessary for he/she to go back to the earlier state where the decision didn' affect her.
    To speculate is human; to hedge, divine
  20. #38
    Join Date Feb 2008
    Posts 834
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Why would privacy be a problem without land ownership rights? What senareo would make land rights neccesary for privacy?
    Well in the case of a house , the land is 'owned' because of the house. The land is a necessary element to put the house on. Furthermore, nobody would really want the land without the commodity of value built upon it.

    I think we can agree that a person should be able to restrict people from camping out on their front lawn. Furthermore, I don't see a problem with the house ( and the land its attached to) being sold or given to someone else by the owners of the home.

    You don't have to call it ownership in the strictest or capitalist sense of the word but its really short hand for acknowledging the person that has the house may do what he pleases with it up to and including selling it.
  21. #39
    Join Date Jan 2009
    Posts 642
    Rep Power 13

    Default

    I think you are leaving an important part behind: Market "forces" that compensate for that information assymetry. Rating businesses, magazines, internet forums, websites, etc all can delivery very important information that can re-balance the amount of information a consumer gets before he decides to buy a product. And all of them can make a greater profit the more their information is accurate.
    but that's not how it works. information can be asymmetric on the supply side as well, for example in insurance companies. sure consumer awareness can increase information on the demand side, but it will never be perfect. because of this, completely efficient (pareto optimal) market transactions are impossible.

    If your analysis is purely economic, then i take it you expect the best system to bring more wealth to everyone, raise the standard of living, education, health and freedom. So i think it is best to see how those things have been going over time, at a "largely free" market system.

    Infant mortality USA
    Life expectancy at birth vs Income per person (animated graph, choose date then press play)
    Literacy rate per country
    Educational attainment in the USA

    Literacy rates and educational attainment can be argued that are not a result from the free market, which i partly agree, since the funding for public schools, which are mandatory, is through tax.
    the united states is far from a free market country, and if you're trying to advocate markets, then i don't see why you're bringing up stats about education or healthcare, sectors with massive amounts of government regulation and intervention.
  22. #40
    Join Date Apr 2009
    Location Earth
    Posts 4,020
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    but that's not how it works. information can be asymmetric on the supply side as well, for example in insurance companies. sure consumer awareness can increase information on the demand side, but it will never be perfect. because of this, completely efficient (pareto optimal) market transactions are impossible.
    Yes, it will never be completely efficient, but it approaches complete efficiency. And it is by far the best model that almost reaches complete efficiency.


    the united states is far from a free market country, and if you're trying to advocate markets, then i don't see why you're bringing up stats about education or healthcare, sectors with massive amounts of government regulation and intervention.
    well, i though i'd add them for perspective. good to know you recognize the US as a far from free country and with massive amount of government regulation and intervention in those areas, as well as others. the problem is there isn't a country free enough to get good data and education and healthcare. Perhaps switzerland. anyway, on the other areas, i believe you can agree the conditions have been improving.
    To speculate is human; to hedge, divine

Similar Threads

  1. Free Trade, Fair Trade
    By Dominicana_1965 in forum Learning
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 6th February 2007, 23:21
  2. Free Trade vs. Fair Trade
    By AlwaysAnarchy in forum Learning
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 30th November 2006, 00:36
  3. Free Enterprise.
    By STN in forum Learning
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 27th June 2006, 04:48
  4. Free Trade
    By Sir Aunty Christ in forum Opposing Ideologies
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 11th August 2005, 02:12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts