Nietzsche, Austrians and Creative Destruction

[Xerographica]

Re: Economic Arguments Against Slavery?

No I did not ask you to dance. I laughed at your dress from across the room. There is no need to address your arguments again. They are just as wrong now as they were the last time. Who exactly do you think will select to fund the IRS to collect the money from them?

You're asking me what the true demand for coercion is. How can I possibly know that? How can you possibly know that? If nobody selects to fund the IRS to collect taxes...then obviously there's no demand for coercion. Forced taxation does not match anybody's true preferences. That's your argument?

And you are still avoiding the points I raised, but that does not bother me, because you will still be just as wrong about letting people directly decide which programs to fund and which ones not to fund because they will have to spend all their money raising money just like a bad charity with 99% overhead.

Yeah, because all the charities have 99% overhead. Except they don't. No two organizations provide people with the same exact bang for their buck. No two organizations are equally efficient/effective. Taxpayers, given that they want the most bang for buck, would support whichever government organizations provided them with the most bang for their buck. The most beneficial government organizations would gain resources and the least beneficial organizations would lose resources.

 

[Fisher]

Re: Economic Arguments Against Slavery?

You're asking me what the true demand for coercion is. How can I possibly know that? How can you possibly know that? If nobody selects to fund the IRS to collect taxes...then obviously there's no demand for coercion. Forced taxation does not match anybody's true preferences. That's your argument?



Yeah, because all the charities have 99% overhead. Except they don't. No two organizations provide people with the same exact bang for their buck. No two organizations are equally efficient/effective. Taxpayers, given that they want the most bang for buck, would support whichever government organizations provided them with the most bang for their buck. The most beneficial government organizations would gain resources and the least beneficial organizations would lose resources.

And there is the flaw in your assumption. The most POPULAR government agencies would be funded, over funded actually, and most departments of the government would be unfunded or underfunded independent of their beneficial nature. The end result would be economically wasteful. This is the flaw of economic theory to begin with--it assumes that whatever is is the way it is supposed to be, when that is hardly ever the case. Economists do a piss poor job of predicting what capital markets will do--and only are worthwhile in explaining what the markets already have done. Economics is math history that totally ignores the dynamics of an economy--public or otherwise--and just looks for aggregate trends. The Austrians at least have some utility to business with their ideal purchaser, but even they ignore the nuance of business activity and decision making.

 

[Xerographica]

Re: Economic Arguments Against Slavery?

And there is the flaw in your assumption. The most POPULAR government agencies would be funded, over funded actually, and most departments of the government would be unfunded or underfunded independent of their beneficial nature.

Independent of their beneficial nature? Think about it. How do you figure out how beneficial an organization is? Do you assume everybody derives the same exact benefit as you? No? Are you omniscient? Do you consult a magic 8 ball? Do you pray about it? Do you ask people how much benefit they derive from something? Do you just look at statistics?

We can only know how much benefit somebody derives from something based on how much they are willing to give up for it. Again, we can only know how much benefit somebody derives from something based on how much they are willing to pay for it. Again, we can only know how much benefit somebody derives from something based on how much they are willing to sacrifice for it.

Therefore, the only way to determine how much benefit 300 million unique individuals derive from something...is to give them the opportunity to choose how much they'll pay for it. Anything else is conceit.

The end result would be economically wasteful.

How can you even define "waste" in the absence of people's true preferences? The current system is wasteful because the supply of public goods does not come close to matching the actual demand for public goods.

For example, go buy something that does not match your preference. Are you going to spend a lot of money on it? No? Why not? Because it would be wasteful.

This is the flaw of economic theory to begin with--it assumes that whatever is is the way it is supposed to be, when that is hardly ever the case. Economists do a piss poor job of predicting what capital markets will do--and only are worthwhile in explaining what the markets already have done. Economics is math history that totally ignores the dynamics of an economy--public or otherwise--and just looks for aggregate trends. The Austrians at least have some utility to business with their ideal purchaser, but even they ignore the nuance of business activity and decision making.

Of course economists do a piss poor job of predicting what markets will do. How can you predict the future preferences of 300 million unique individuals? You'd have to know all their circumstances and their utility functions...which are dynamic...not static. It boggles my mind that you critique economists for failing to be omniscient.

If we knew how freedom would be used, the case for it would largely disappear. - Friedrich A. Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty

 

[Xerographica]

Re: Economic Arguments Against Slavery?

You were arguing against killing the Chinese, not enslaving them (until an economic advantage appears in doing so, then it's cool to just kill them all.)

Killing, enslaving and taxing the Chinese all limit how much influence they have over how the world's resources are used.

Let me break it down for you. Back in the day, the king had sole control over the power of the purse. Why? Because people like you believed he was divinely inspired. Then, some barons got fed up with him wasting their money on war...so they took the power of the purse from him. Now, people like you believe that congresspeople are divinely inspired. If you didn't think that they were divinely inspired then you would be a pragmatarian.

Okay, I get it. You know everything.

I know everything, which is why I advocate that you be given the freedom to choose where your own taxes go. That doesn't make sense. The reality is...I grasp how little I, or anybody else, can truly know...which is why I advocate that you be given the freedom to chose where your own taxes go.

How does slavery limit perspective? If anything, you're advocating limiting the slavery perspective.

Either you choose how you spend your own resources...or somebody else chooses for you. If somebody else chooses for you...then your perspective is taken out of the equation which determines how society's limited resources are used. Your preferences still exist...but because you can't demonstrate them...the supply will not reflect them.

If your wife forces you to be a vegetarian, then your preference for meat will not be realized. This will marginally diminish the supply of meat. It's not taxation, and it's not murder...but is it slavery? Well...it's been said that marriage is legalized slavery.

But the point is, in this case, at least the decision is highly local. It's your wife, somebody who knows you better than most, making a decision for you. It's not some congressperson, who've you've never even met, a thousand miles away, deciding how much you value public education.

You have no clue what I support. For knowing everything, you sure do say a lot of false things about me. Maybe you're just arrogant?

So when I said that you don't support allowing taxpayers to choose where their taxes go...I was saying something false about you?

 

[head of joaquin]

Re: Economic Arguments Against Slavery?

Are there strong economic arguments for slavery? .

History indicates that people can rationalize any odious activity, especially if they have wealth and power and an institutional platform to speak with "authority". The economic rational for slavery was made by southern slaveowners for 80 years. It was a pretense that allowed this immoral practice to continue. It took a war to stop end. The notion that economic arguments happen in a vacuum and that slaves could have convinced their masters that they'd make more money by ending slavery is typical of cramped rationalism.

I guess this is an attempt to pretend that economics is a hard science and isn't embedded in social conditions and institutions. A common conservative mistake.

 

[Xerographica]

Re: Economic Arguments Against Slavery?

History indicates that people can rationalize any odious activity, especially if they have wealth and power and an institutional platform to speak with "authority". The economic rational for slavery was made by southern slaveowners for 80 years. It was a pretense that allowed this immoral practice to continue. It took a war to stop end. The notion that economic arguments happen in a vacuum and that slaves could have convinced their masters that they'd make more money by ending slavery is typical of cramped rationalism.

I guess this is an attempt to pretend that economics is a hard science and isn't embedded in social conditions and institutions. A common conservative mistake.

Slave owners wanted the most bang for their buck. They wanted free labor. They wanted something for nothing. What about voters? Do voters want something for nothing? Do they want a free lunch?

Let's review...

As was noted in Chapter 3, expressions of malice and/or envy no less than expressions of altruism are cheaper in the voting booth than in the market. A German voter who in 1933 cast a ballot for Hitler was able to indulge his antisemitic sentiments at much less cost than she would have borne by organizing a pogrom. - Geoffrey Brennan, Loren Lomasky, Democracy and Decision

Yeah, voters also want a free lunch.

The solution? We told business owners that if they want labor...that they will have to pay for it. Now, we have to tell voters that if they want public goods...that they will have to pay for them.

Did slave owners easily give up their free labor? No. Will voters easily give up their free public goods? Not if we can't help them understand the value of paying for the things that they want.

What's the value of paying for the things that we want? You don't know. You're a liberal. And clearly I struggle to help you understand the value of people putting their money where their mouths are.

Putting your money where your mouth is reveals what your preferences/priorities are. Without your preferences/priorities...how can we determine the most valuable uses of society's limited resources? We can't.

 

[RGacky3]

Re: Economic Arguments Against Slavery?

The whole argument you're putting forward, pre-supposes morality, you can't do economics without morality, because you have to determine the purpose of economic policy, and that requires ethical valuation.

As far as taxes, the state creates property, and defends it, without the state property doesn't exist.

I've debated Xorgraphica over nad over again on his one trick pony, and instead of actually dealing with the issues, he just reframes different situations, or parables or whatever, this is just another example of this, this "economic argument against slavery" is really just him wanting to troll around his pet theory that's been debunked already.

You havn't presented a non-moral argument against slavery, it's just a moral argument with different moral presuppositions.

 

[RGacky3]

Re: Economic Arguments Against Slavery?

The moral argument against controlling other people's resources is overwhelmingly strong?

Stealing bread is wrong because stealing is always wrong - deontological argument (moral)
Stealing bread isn't wrong if it results in saving the life of a starving child - consequentialist argument (economic)

Slavery is wrong because violence is always wrong - deontological argument (moral)
Slavery is wrong because we're better off when people are free - consequentialist argument (economic)

Why are we better off when people are free? Well...because, given that we are unique individuals, we do different things with our resources. Doing different things with our resources is how we can discover more better uses of our resources. As a result, we're better off.

Einstein said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result. Slavery, and taxation, promote homogeneous activity...they are insanity. Allowing people to choose where their taxes go would facilitate heterogeneous activity.

No ALL of those arguments are moral arguments,

"Stealing bread isn't wrong if it results in saving the life of a starving child - consequentialist argument (economic)" Thats a moral rgument because it's assuming that children starving is immoral.

"Slavery is wrong because we're better off when people are free - consequentialist argument (economic)" That's a moral argument because it presupposes that we should care if OTHER PEOPLE are better off ...

All you've done is made moral arguments more complex.

BTW, people can choose where there taxes go if they live in a functioning democracy, it's called voting .... The reason we do it that way is becomse some things are public goods and services that are determined by society to be such and thus subject to the democratic process rather than the plutocracy of the market, which cannot take care of externalities.

Enough of this.

 

[imagep]

Re: Economic Arguments Against Slavery?

...
BTW, people can choose where there taxes go if they live in a functioning democracy, it's called voting .... The reason we do it that way is becomse some things are public goods and services that are determined by society to be such and thus subject to the democratic process rather than the plutocracy of the market, which cannot take care of externalities.

Exactly. I believe that the budget that we would see if we implemented Xero's plan would end up being very much like we have today. Assumably, the reason we spend the amount of money that we do on anything is because we elect officials who want to spend that amount of money, and if we didn't agree, we would elect different officials.

Or, possibly it could be totally nonsensical if tax payers decided to game the system, and designate that all of their tax dollars go to their favorite pet program. I could easily see people in a particular town get together and all "vote" for their tax payments to fund a local country club, while designating nothing for defense or maintenance of of the Statue of Liberty. Conservatives like to talk a lot about the "masses voting themselves benefits at other peoples expense", Xero's plan might make that situation much worse.

However, I would love to see an optional non-binding form on the income tax paperwork that would allow people to do so. It would be interesting to see the results, and I would have nothing against allowing this information to be considered by congress when they are budgeting.

I suspect that Xero keeps pushing that plan because he wants to put even more power into the hands of the rich, and remove any and all power from almost half our nation. Some people just love Oligarchy.

 

[Xerographica]

Re: Economic Arguments Against Slavery?

The whole argument you're putting forward, pre-supposes morality, you can't do economics without morality, because you have to determine the purpose of economic policy, and that requires ethical valuation.

When it comes to morality...the consequences of an action are irrelevant. For example, slavery would still be wrong even if we were somehow better off as a society. But if you evaluate an activity based solely on the consequences...then this is the realm of economics. For example, we would say that slavery is "right" IF the consequences/outcome was desirable/beneficial.

As far as taxes, the state creates property, and defends it, without the state property doesn't exist.

What? How do you know that property wouldn't exist without the state? What does that even mean? If the state ceased to exist...then people would just steal from each other? If property didn't exist...then how could people possibly take anything from each other?

I've debated Xorgraphica over nad over again on his one trick pony, and instead of actually dealing with the issues, he just reframes different situations, or parables or whatever, this is just another example of this, this "economic argument against slavery" is really just him wanting to troll around his pet theory that's been debunked already.

Really? You've debunked my "theory" that markets allocate resources more efficiently than command economies?

You havn't presented a non-moral argument against slavery, it's just a moral argument with different moral presuppositions.

Have you presented any argument against slavery?

 

[Xerographica]

Re: Economic Arguments Against Slavery?

Exactly. I believe that the budget that we would see if we implemented Xero's plan would end up being very much like we have today. Assumably, the reason we spend the amount of money that we do on anything is because we elect officials who want to spend that amount of money, and if we didn't agree, we would elect different officials.

Are you familiar with the preference revelation problem?

Nevertheless, the classic solution to the problem of underprovision of public goods has been government funding - through compulsory taxation - and government production of the good or service in question. Although this may substantially alleviate the problem of numerous free-riders that refuse to pay for the benefits they receive, it should be noted that the policy process does not provide any very plausible method for determining what the optimal or best level of provision of a public good actually is. When it is impossible to observe what individuals are willing to give up in order to get the public good, how can policymakers access how urgently they really want more or less of it, given the other possible uses of their money? There is a whole economic literature dealing with the willingness-to-pay methods and contingent valuation techniques to try and divine such preference in the absence of a market price doing so, but even the most optimistic proponets of such devices tend to concede that public goods will still most likely be underprovided or overprovided under government stewardship. - Patricia Kennett, Governance, globalization and public policy

Or, possibly it could be totally nonsensical if tax payers decided to game the system, and designate that all of their tax dollars go to their favorite pet program. I could easily see people in a particular town get together and all "vote" for their tax payments to fund a local country club, while designating nothing for defense or maintenance of of the Statue of Liberty. Conservatives like to talk a lot about the "masses voting themselves benefits at other peoples expense", Xero's plan might make that situation much worse.

The people in country A spend nothing on defense while the people in country B spend everything on offense? In that case, all of people A's country clubs end up being owned by people B. But then, if people B really wanted country clubs that badly, then why wouldn't they just spend their taxes on country clubs rather than offense?

Let's imagine that one day everybody spends all their money on cheese whiz. That would suck right? Therefore, let's make sure that doesn't happen by electing government planners to ensure that a proper balance of food is produced.

Listen, I know it's hard for you to imagine...but we all have unique utility functions. Hang out at a supermarket and see how long it takes you to find two strangers who have the same set of items in their shopping carts. You can't comprehend/grasp the complexity of people's preferences. If you could, then you wouldn't come up with ridiculous scenarios of rich people all spending their taxes on country clubs.

However, I would love to see an optional non-binding form on the income tax paperwork that would allow people to do so. It would be interesting to see the results, and I would have nothing against allowing this information to be considered by congress when they are budgeting.

A form is a survey...it's a contingent valuation technique. Does that sound familiar? It should...it's in the passage I just shared. They don't accurately reflect people's true preferences because words don't speak as loudly as actions.

I suspect that Xero keeps pushing that plan because he wants to put even more power into the hands of the rich, and remove any and all power from almost half our nation. Some people just love Oligarchy.

First you argue that the allocation would be pretty much the same...and now you're arguing that the allocation would be more skewed towards the preferences of the wealthy. Seriously? Which is it? It can't be both. Given that you've argued that it could be both, it's abundantly clear that you haven't put any real thought into the concept. Learn about the preference revelation problem and try again.

 

[imagep]

Re: Economic Arguments Against Slavery?

First you argue that the allocation would be pretty much the same...and now you're arguing that the allocation would be more skewed towards the preferences of the wealthy. Seriously? Which is it? It can't be both. Given that you've argued that it could be both, it's abundantly clear that you haven't put any real thought into the concept. Learn about the preference revelation problem and try again.

We don't really know now do we. Thats why I said that I would be interested in essentially doing a survey with the next income tax form to find out.

In theory, if people don't try to game the system, it should be similar to the budget that we have now. If people do game the system (which might take a few years before people figure that stuff out), the budgeting might become highly distorted with most money going to pork projects, and little money going to defense and other important government activities. But who the heck really knows?

 

[head of joaquin]

Re: Economic Arguments Against Slavery?

Slave owners wanted the most bang for their buck. They wanted free labor. They wanted something for nothing. What about voters? Do voters want something for nothing? Do they want a free lunch?

Let's review...



Yeah, voters also want a free lunch.

The solution? We told business owners that if they want labor...that they will have to pay for it. Now, we have to tell voters that if they want public goods...that they will have to pay for them.

Did slave owners easily give up their free labor? No. Will voters easily give up their free public goods? Not if we can't help them understand the value of paying for the things that they want.

What's the value of paying for the things that we want? You don't know. You're a liberal. And clearly I struggle to help you understand the value of people putting their money where their mouths are.

Putting your money where your mouth is reveals what your preferences/priorities are. Without your preferences/priorities...how can we determine the most valuable uses of society's limited resources? We can't.

So it all goes back to your crank theory. I saw that coming.

 

[Xerographica]

Re: Economic Arguments Against Slavery?

We don't really know now do we. Thats why I said that I would be interested in essentially doing a survey with the next income tax form to find out.

Furthermore, social scientists know that there is often a big gulf between consumers' answers to surveys questions and what they actually do when confronted with real choices involving real prices and the immediate circumstances of consumption. - Richard B. McKenzie, Bound to Be Free

In theory, if people don't try to game the system, it should be similar to the budget that we have now. If people do game the system (which might take a few years before people figure that stuff out), the budgeting might become highly distorted with most money going to pork projects, and little money going to defense and other important government activities. But who the heck really knows?

When consumers shop around for the best deals...are they trying to game the system? Taxpayers would simply be consumers. They would spend their taxes on whichever public goods provided them with the most bang for their buck.

Now, how could you make the argument that this allocation was highly distorted? In order to say that something is distorted...you need a point of reference. You know a carnival mirror produces a distorted image because you've seen your reflection in a real mirror.

Right now the current allocation of public funds is distorted. Why is it distorted? Because it doesn't reflect the true preferences of taxpayers. We can only know the true preferences of taxpayers if they are given the opportunity to put their taxes where their mouths are. Yet, your argument is that this allocation might be highly distorted.

It's impossible for the allocation to be distorted because the allocation would accurately reflect the actual demand for public goods. Why? Opportunity cost. Taxpayers would have no choice but to sacrifice the alternative uses of their taxes. A tax dollar spent on public education is a tax dollar that can't also be spent on public healthcare. Therefore, taxpayers' individual valuations will reveal what their true priorities/preferences are. It will reveal what's most important to them. So would you really argue that they were lying about their priorities?

 

[Ahlevah]

Re: Economic Arguments Against Slavery?

Here's an argument against slavery:

Slaves can't consume if they don't have resources; they're only an expense. On the other hand, if the slave can be paid, he can go into debt and also be a consumer, thereby consuming more than he costs. A bonus is he's a slave and doesn't even realize it, so he tends to revolt less.

 

[imagep]

Re: Economic Arguments Against Slavery?

Now, how could you make the argument that this allocation was highly distorted? In order to say that something is distorted...you need a point of reference. You know a carnival mirror produces a distorted image because you've seen your reflection in a real mirror.

I get your point, and it's a legitmate one, but...

If 95% of our taxes from people who happened to live in Idaho were voted to go to building a potato chip museum in Boise, then I think that you and I would likely agree that the system was being gamed.

I'm not totally against your idea, but thats why I think that we should do some non-binding test runs, and take a serious look at the data, before we jumped into such. Sometimes great and well intended ideas end up having undesirable results. I guess it's those "unintended consequences" that libertarians talk about so much.

 

[Xerographica]

Re: Economic Arguments Against Slavery?

I get your point, and it's a legitmate one, but...

If 95% of our taxes from people who happened to live in Idaho were voted to go to building a potato chip museum in Boise, then I think that you and I would likely agree that the system was being gamed.

Did you ever see the SNL skit where Christopher Walken was asking for more cowbell? When I cook pretty much anything...I'm the same way with garlic. Most dishes are more delicious with more garlic.

But can you really see most small business owners in Boise saying that they need more potato chip museums? Is that the input that they really need more of? Is that their weakest link? Do they all agree that an absence of potato chip museums is where the bottleneck is? Let's see what Elizabeth Warren has to say about which inputs business owners depend on...

I hear all this, you know, “Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever.”—No! There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there—good for you! But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that maurauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did. Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea—God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.

Imagine a business owner who spends his limited funds on the wrong inputs. Let's say that Bob, the owner of a pizza joint, spends his revenue on more cowbells rather than on more pepperoni. What happens? Are there any consequences? "Sorry, we're out of pepperoni...but we have fresh cowbells." Clearly Bob would lose revenue. Therefore, he would have less influence over how society's limited resources are used. Bob wouldn't have as much say when it came to determining whether we need more potato chip museums or more public schools.

Taxpayers are the people who get the balance of inputs right...as determined by the preferences of consumers.

Do you know what inputs business owners in Boise need more of? Does Elizabeth Warren? She thinks she does which is why she suffers from a fatal conceit. The fact is, nobody knows better than the business owners which inputs that they need more of. So if we want more of the goods that we all value enough to spend our money on...then we should allow taxpayers to choose where their taxes go.

I'm not totally against your idea, but thats why I think that we should do some non-binding test runs, and take a serious look at the data, before we jumped into such. Sometimes great and well intended ideas end up having undesirable results. I guess it's those "unintended consequences" that libertarians talk about so much.

"Unintended consequences" that libertarians talk about so much occur because the allocation of resources was not determined by consumers...it was determined by conceited government planners.

Adolph Hitler...

However well balanced the general pattern of a nation's life ought to be, there must at particular times be certain disturbances of the balance at the expense of other less vital tasks. If we do not succeed in bringing the German army as rapidly as possible to the rank of premier army in the world...then Germany will be lost!

MORE COWBELL!! The cowbell was military. But did the Germans really need more bullets on top of their pizzas? Of course not. So were there unintended consequences?

Mao Zedong...

Apart from their other characteristics, the outstanding thing about China's 600 million people is that they are "poor and blank". This may seem a bad thing, but in reality it is a good thing. Poverty gives rise to the desire for changes the desire for action and the desire for revolution. On a blank sheet of paper free from any mark, the freshest and most beautiful characters can be written; the freshest and most beautiful pictures can be painted.

People are too "blank" to make good decisions regarding their resources. Therefore, we'll choose for them. Were there unintended consequences?

Unintended consequences always result from diminishing the influence of consumers. Right now we are suffering the unintended consequences of congresspeople diminishing the influence of consumers. We end up with potato chip museums when more schools should have been built. We end up with more wars instead of more funding for cancer research.

What public goods do 300 million American citizens need more of? Do they need more hospitals? Do they need better roads? Do they need more public transportation? Do they need more policemen? Do they need more space exploration? Do they need more environmental protection?

If we want to minimize unintended consequences...then we should step away from conceit...and allow taxpayers to choose where their taxes go.

 

[RGacky3]

Re: Economic Arguments Against Slavery?

When it comes to morality...the consequences of an action are irrelevant. For example, slavery would still be wrong even if we were somehow better off as a society. But if you evaluate an activity based solely on the consequences...then this is the realm of economics. For example, we would say that slavery is "right" IF the consequences/outcome was desirable/beneficial.

No, when it comes to morality the consequences ARE relevant, in almost every moral theory, consequences are relevant, utalitarianism, kantian ethics, universalism, and so on.

If you evaluate solely based on the consequences, that is utalitarianism, it is'nt economics, since it would include all sorts of activity.

Also when you say "desirable/beneficial" for whome? And based on what standard, it's like the whole "efficiency" thing that peopel throw around but is filled with un-admitted presuppositions. Slavery can be beneficial as long as you don't include the outcome for the slaves.

What? How do you know that property wouldn't exist without the state? What does that even mean? If the state ceased to exist...then people would just steal from each other? If property didn't exist...then how could people possibly take anything from each other?

If the state ceased to exist, private property would eventually just go back to the commons, especially land, large estate property claims are, without a state, as useless as claims to monarchy in a republic without and army.

Really? You've debunked my "theory" that markets allocate resources more efficiently than command economies?

No, I've debunked the idea that "choosing where your tax money goes" individually rather than democratically would work.

Have you presented any argument against slavery?

My argument is that no one has the right to claim ownership with threat of violence over another person, and economic argument is irrelivant because it relies on moral presuppositions.

 

[Xerographica]

Re: Economic Arguments Against Slavery?

No, when it comes to morality the consequences ARE relevant, in almost every moral theory, consequences are relevant, utalitarianism, kantian ethics, universalism, and so on.

There are deontological arguments and consequential arguments.

If you evaluate solely based on the consequences, that is utalitarianism, it is'nt economics, since it would include all sorts of activity.

Again and again, you have an extremely narrow view of economics. Nobody is paying us to sit here and discuss this topic. Yet our activity falls firmly within the realm of economics. Why? Because we are influencing how society's limited resources are used.

Also when you say "desirable/beneficial" for whome? And based on what standard, it's like the whole "efficiency" thing that peopel throw around but is filled with un-admitted presuppositions. Slavery can be beneficial as long as you don't include the outcome for the slaves.

Why am I not surprised that you still don't grasp the concept of efficiency. Let me try and make it so simple that even you can understand it...

Let's say that a rule was made that lemons could only be thrown at cars. They couldn't be used for lemonade...they couldn't be used for salad dressing...they could only be thrown at cars. Would this allocation of lemons be efficient? Would this allocation allow us, as a society, to derive the maximum amount of value from lemons? No, it wouldn't. Why? Because we already know that people derive more value from numerous other uses of lemons. In order for the allocation of lemons to be efficient...the distribution of lemons has to reflect society's values. And how can we determine society's values? By allowing people to shop for themselves.

If the state ceased to exist, private property would eventually just go back to the commons, especially land, large estate property claims are, without a state, as useless as claims to monarchy in a republic without and army.

So if the state ceased to exist...armies would cease to exist? Nobody would allocate any of their resources towards defending their property? There's absolutely no demand for safeguarding one's property? Your brain is broken.

No, I've debunked the idea that "choosing where your tax money goes" individually rather than democratically would work.

Being able to choose where your time/money goes is a market. It's really sad that you completely fail to understand that if you debunk the efficacy of a market in the public sector...then you've debunked the efficacy of a market in the private sector. Either markets are effective at determining the most efficient/valuable allocation of resources...or they are not.

Clearly you don't even grasp the basic concept of a market. If people can shop for themselves...then you have a market. If people can't shop for themselves...then you have a command/planned economy. Markets are more effective at determining the most valuable allocation of resources because only consumers know how much value they derive from the various uses of society's limited resources.

My argument is that no one has the right to claim ownership with threat of violence over another person, and economic argument is irrelivant because it relies on moral presuppositions.

So you're against taxes?

 

[RGacky3]

Re: Economic Arguments Against Slavery?

There are deontological arguments and consequential arguments.

Yeah, but even Deontological ethics deal with consequences.

Again and again, you have an extremely narrow view of economics. Nobody is paying us to sit here and discuss this topic. Yet our activity falls firmly within the realm of economics. Why? Because we are influencing how society's limited resources are used.

Ok, so everything is economics to you, I mean is choosing whether or not to marry an economic question? Since you could be using your time to do something else?

Utalitarianism is a moral philosophy that doesn't only apply to economics, unless of coarse you define economics as everything.

Why am I not surprised that you still don't grasp the concept of efficiency. Let me try and make it so simple that even you can understand it...

Let's say that a rule was made that lemons could only be thrown at cars. They couldn't be used for lemonade...they couldn't be used for salad dressing...they could only be thrown at cars. Would this allocation of lemons be efficient? Would this allocation allow us, as a society, to derive the maximum amount of value from lemons? No, it wouldn't. Why? Because we already know that people derive more value from numerous other uses of lemons. In order for the allocation of lemons to be efficient...the distribution of lemons has to reflect society's values. And how can we determine society's values? By allowing people to shop for themselves.

That example is rediculous, it's not realistic, my point is, take an example of a factory, it's more efficient to dump waste in the river rather than pay for it to be removed, FOR THE FACTORY, but not for the town down the road, you see the problem? When the factory is making the decision though, it doesn't take into account the cost for the town down the road, or the fisheries.

Also you determine societies values many ways, shopping for some things, other things for others, shopping determines what people can afford. A desperately poor person doesn't value unhealthy canned food over healthy food, it's what he can afford, an extremely wealthy person doesn't value a helecopter over food, it's just he can afford a helecopter.

Then you claim those WITH money get money because society values their work, which is strange since the richest people around are investment bankers, why? Not because their services are valued by society, they arn't, but because they control capital.

So if the state ceased to exist...armies would cease to exist? Nobody would allocate any of their resources towards defending their property? There's absolutely no demand for safeguarding one's property? Your brain is broken.

1. Without a state it's people defending WHAT THEY CLAIM is their property.
2. Sure, people would probably pick up a gun and try and lay stake to pieces of land, i.e. private armies.
3. They have those situations now, warlords, gangs, mafias.
4. Without a state, all a claim on property is is just that ... a claim, as valid as my claiming to be King of Santa Monica.

Being able to choose where your time/money goes is a market. It's really sad that you completely fail to understand that if you debunk the efficacy of a market in the public sector...then you've debunked the efficacy of a market in the private sector. Either markets are effective at determining the most efficient/valuable allocation of resources...or they are not.

Clearly you don't even grasp the basic concept of a market. If people can shop for themselves...then you have a market. If people can't shop for themselves...then you have a command/planned economy. Markets are more effective at determining the most valuable allocation of resources because only consumers know how much value they derive from the various uses of society's limited resources.

No .... Being able to choose where your time goes isn't a market, it's just life, being able to choose where your money goes isn't necessarily a market either, a market is an exchange based on barter and in competition, if you're just going to redefine every word (Economics = everything, Market= doing stuff), it's impossible to have a conversation.

What I've debunked is the concept efficiency in the public sector, you're missing the point of the public sector.

I get the concept of a market, a democratic economy, mutualism, particepatory economics and so on are not command/planned economies, yet they are not market based.

You're also missing the whole point of the public sector being DEMOCRATICALLY rather than PLUTOCRATICALLY accountable.

So you're against taxes?

Nope, because money isn't a person.

 

[Xerographica]

Are You An Economic Imperialist?

How many of you are familiar with the term "economic imperialism"? Probably the first thing that comes to mind is colonialism...but it actually refers to using economics to analyze and understand what is traditionally considered "noneconomic" behavior. So if you're an economic imperialist...then there's no such thing as noneconomic behavior. All human action falls within the scope of economics. Therefore, economics has an extremely broad scope.

On the other hand, if you think economics is only useful for helping us understand the exchange of money for products/services...then you are not an economic imperialist. You believe that economics has a very narrow scope.

The reason I created this thread is because the topic keeps coming up with another forum member...

Ok, so everything is economics to you, I mean is choosing whether or not to marry an economic question? Since you could be using your time to do something else?

The Nobel Prize winning economist Gary Becker is the preeminent economic imperialist. Here's his view on the question that RGacky3 raised...

...economic motivation can mean many things. I believe man is economically motivated in the sense that he is forward-looking–he tries to anticipate the consequences of his actions, and takes those consequences into account in deciding what to do. Such consequences influence the way he orders all aspects of life, including who he marries, whether he divorces, how many children he has, and so forth. It is, however, incorrect to think man is entirely motivated by selfishness and material gain. That is a notion I most emphatically reject.

Here's a relevant passage that I shared in this thread ...

Every animal, including the bête philosophe, instinctively strives for an optimum of favorable conditions under which it can expend all its strength and achieve its maximal feeling of power; every animal abhors, just as instinctively and with a subtlety of discernment that is "higher than all reason," every kind of intrusion or hindrance that obstructs or could obstruct his path to the optimum (– it is not his path to ‘happiness’ I am talking about, but the path to power, action, the mightiest deeds, and in most cases, actually, his path to misery). Thus the philosopher abhors marriage, together with all that might persuade him to it, – marriage as hindrance and catastrophe on his path to the optimum. Which great philosopher, so far, has been married? Heraclitus, Plato, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Kant, Schopenhauer – were not; indeed it is impossible to even think about them as married. A married philosopher belongs to comedy, that is my proposition: and that exception, Socrates, the mischievous Socrates, appears to have married ironice, simply in order to demonstrate this proposition. Every philosopher would say what Buddha said when he was told of the birth of a son: ‘Râhula is born to me, a fetter is forged for me’ (Râhula means here ‘a little demon’); every ‘free spirit' ought to have a thoughtful moment, assuming he has previously had a thoughtless one, like the moment experienced by that same Buddha – he thought to himself, ‘living in a house, that unclean place, is cramped; freedom is in leaving the house’: so saying, he left the house. The ascetic ideal points the way to so many bridges to independence that no philosopher can refrain from inwardly rejoicing and clapping hands on hearing the story of all those who, one fine day, decided to say ‘no’ to any curtailment of their liberty, and go off into the desert: even granted they were just strong asses and the complete opposite of a strong spirit. Consequently, what does the ascetic ideal mean for a philosopher? My answer is – you will have guessed ages ago: on seeing an ascetic ideal, the philosopher smiles because he sees an optimum condition of the highest and boldest intellectuality [Geistigkeit], – he does not deny ‘existence’ by doing so, but rather affirms his existence and only his existence, and possibly does this to the point where he is not far from making the outrageous wish: pereat mundus, fiat philosophia, fiat philosophus, fiam!… - Friedrich Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morality

It's all about utility maximization...getting the most bang for your buck. But because values are subjective...some people are going to maximize their utility by being single while others are going to maximize their utility by being married with kids. The opportunity cost concept helps us understand that there are always trade-offs. So the more time you spend with your family, the less time you'll have to spend on other things that are also important to you. In other words...something is always going to be sacrificed...

By preferring my work, simply by giving it my time, my attention, by preferring my activity as a citizen or as a professional philosopher, writing and speaking here in a public language, French in my case, I am perhaps fulfilling my duty. But I am sacrificing and betraying at every moment all my other obligations: my obligation to the other others whom I know or don’t know, the billions of my fellows (without mentioning the animals that are even more other others than my fellows), my fellows who are dying of starvation or sickness. I betray my fidelity or my obligations to other citizens, to those who don't speak my language and to whom I neither speak or respond, to each of those who listen or read, and to whom I neither respond nor address myself in the proper manner, that is, in a singular manner (this is for the so-called public space to which I sacrifice my so-called private space), thus also to those I love in private, my own, my family, my son, each of whom is the only son I sacrifice to the other, every one being sacrificed to every one else in this land of Moriah that is our habitat every second of every day. - Jacques Derrida, The Gift of Death

Clearly I'm not getting paid to spend my time creating this post...just like you are not getting paid to spend your time reading this. Nor do we have to reach into our wallets to pay for this one particular use of our time. Yet...even though there is no cost...there is still an opportunity cost. Markets give us the freedom to consider which uses of our limited resources (time/money) provide us with the most value. As a result, markets provide us with infinitely more value than planned/command economies (our public sector).

So are you an economic imperialist? Here are some relevant passages...

First, economics is all about individuals. That is because economics is all about choice. We can’t have everything, so we have to choose which things are most important to us: would we prefer a new car, for example, or a summer holiday? To go out with friends, or to relax at home? Invariably, we have to give up one thing (an amount of money or time and effort, say) to get another (such as a new pair of shoes or a tidy garden). These are economic decisions – even when no money is involved. They are questions of how we juggle scarce resources (cars, holidays, company, leisure, money, time, effort) to best satisfy our many wants. They are what economics is all about. - Eamonn Butler, Austrian Economics

Austrians were among the first economists that recognized that the economic way of thinking was not limited to market exchange, but was generally applicable across social settings. - Peter Boettke, Peter Leeson, An ‘Austrian’ Perspective on Public Choice

I contend that the economic approach is uniquely powerful because it can integrate a wide range of human behavior - Gary S. Becker, The Economic Approach to Human Behavior

The economic approach is clearly not restricted to material goods and wants, nor even to the market sector. Prices, be they the money prices of the market sector or the "shadow" imputed prices of the nonmarket sector, measure the opportunity cost of using scarce resources, and the economic approach predicts the same kind of response to shadow prices as to market prices. Consider, for example, a person whose only scarce resource is his limited amount of time. This time is used to produce various commodities that enter his preference function, the aim being to maximize utility. Even without a market sector, either directly or indirectly, each commodity has a relevant marginal "shadow" price, namely, the time required to produce a unit change in that commodity; in equilibrium, the ratio of these prices must equal the ratio of the marginal utilities. Most importantly, an increase in the relative price of any commodity - i.e., an increase in the time required to produce a unit of that commodity - would tend to reduce the consumption of that commodity. - Gary S. Becker, The Economic Approach to Human Behavior

Indeed, I have come to the position that the economic approach is a comprehensive one that is applicable to all human behavior, be it behavior involving money prices or imputed shadow prices, repeated or infrequent decisions, large or minor decisions, emotional or mechanical ends, rich or poor persons, men or women, adults or children, brilliant or stupid persons, patients or therapists, businessmen or politicians, teachers or students. - Gary S. Becker, The Economic Approach to Human Behavior

The most aggressive economic imperialists aim to explain all social behavior by using the tools of economics. Areas traditionally deemed to be outside the realm of economics because they do not use explicit markets or prices are analyzed by the economic imperialist. - Edward Lazear, Economic Imperialism

A corollary of maximization is that on the margin, there are always tradeoffs. The notion that there is no free lunch is central to economics. The simple, but crucial concept of opportunity cost lies behind much of the ability of economics to extend into other areas. Sometimes the tradeoffs are subtle. Prices and costs are not necessarily parameters that are observed in market data, but they affect behavior nonetheless. Other social sciences do not place the same weight on explicit recognition of the tension between costs and benefits, which reduces the ability of these fields to grapple systematically with social phenomena. Thinking about tradeoffs gives rise to related thoughts on substitutability. Economists place emphasis on choice. Things are not technologically determined. This is true for consumers and producers alike. There is no fixed number of jobs. Firms can trade off between employing labor and capital and workers can choose between labor and leisure. - Edward Lazear, Economic Imperialism

The notion of opportunity cost refers to the fact that the allocation of resources to biodiversity conservation necessarily means those resources cannot be allocated to something else. From an economic perspective, the money value of the resources allocated to conservation approximates the benefit that is sacrificed for conservation. Hence, for the instrumental value rule to be obeyed, it must be the case that the benefits (positive changes in human well-being) from conservation must exceed the costs of conservation (the well-being foregone). In essence, this is the resource allocation rule that would be used in economics. - David Pearce, Dominic Moran, Dan Biller, Handbook of Biodiversity Valuation A Guide for Policy Makers

The economic approach stresses the fact that any expenditure always has an opportunity cost, i.e. a benefit that is sacrificed because money is used in a particular way. For example, since biodiversity is threatened by many factors, but chiefly by changes in land use, measures of value denominated in monetary terms can be used to demonstrate the importance of biodiversity conservation relative to alternative uses of land. In this way, a better balance between 'developmental' needs and conservation can be illustrated. To date, that balance has tended to favour the conversion of land to industrial, residential and infrastructure use because biodiversity is not seen as having a significant market value. Economic approaches to valuation can help to identify that potential market value, whilst a further stage in the process of conservation is to 'create markets' where currently none exist. Market creation is the subject of a separate OECD initiative (OECD, forthcoming). - David Pearce, Dominic Moran, Dan Biller, Handbook of Biodiversity Valuation A Guide for Policy Makers

From the economic viewpoint, such ‘goods’ as family, church, love and the like are merely linguistic devices for a totality of concretely useful renditions of services. - Eugen Böhm-Bawerk, Are Legal Rights Economic Goods

It is impossible to draw a clear-cut boundary around the sphere or domain of human action to be included in economic science. - Frank H Knight, The Common Sense of Political Economy

These extraordinarily complex micro-relationships are what we are really referring to when we speak of “the economy.” It is definitely not a single, simple process for producing a uniform, aggregate glop. Moreover, when we speak of “economic action,” we are referring to the choices that millions of diverse participants make in selecting one course of action and setting aside a possible alternative. Without choice, constrained by scarcity, no true economic action takes place. Thus, vulgar Keynesianism, which purports to be an economic model or at least a coherent framework of economic analysis, actually excludes the very possibility of genuine economic action, substituting for it a simple, mechanical conception, the intellectual equivalent of a baby toy. - Robert Higgs, Recession and Recovery

 

[KevinKohler]

Re: Are You An Economic Imperialist?

Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar.

 

[Ahlevah]

Re: Are You An Economic Imperialist?

I'm a "Happiness Imperialist," i.e. I'm in favor of whatever mechanism will maximize happiness because people should be happy. If they're not happy, then there's really no point to living, and if I've learned one thing it is money is not always the motivator people think it is. I've seen "poor" people who were A LOT happier than so-called "rich" people and really didn't want for much. Put me on a beach in a nipa hut facing the Sulu Sea with a hammock, a bottle of San Miguel, and fresh pineapples and I'd be perfectly happy.

 

[Medusa]

Re: Are You An Economic Imperialist?

you may define it as globalization

 

[Ahlevah]

Re: Are You An Economic Imperialist?

you may define it as globalization

Of course, I'd have to have Internet in my nipa hut, but the locals could care less what's transpiring beyond their little corner of the world. Their lives consist of rice, mangos, pineapples, bananas, guavas, roast pig, beer, Mahjong, their church, and their kids.