why the rich get richer, why the poor get poorer

[ashurbanipal]

How do they use their capital to limit competition? Did big box retailers come in vogue because they supressed everyone else or because people choose to give them their money for their very cheap products?

I thought I would add a helpful bit of trivia on this point:

As a businessman, something I did when I was in charge of purchasing for my company was keep an eye on anyone potentially trying to get a competitive business going in my markets. If someone started to, I called all my suppliers (which were pretty much all suppliers of the types of products I sell) and told them that they would lose my business--which was considerable--if they supplied the new store. I strangled out probably a hundred or so start-up businesses that way. Wal-Mart has far more such blood on their hands.

 

[Feela]

How do they use their capital to limit competition? Did big box retailers come in vogue because they supressed everyone else or because people choose to give them their money for their very cheap products?

It was mainly through the state.

What incentive is there for a highly skilled worker to work for another man. As was mentioned earlier, is that not also a form of exploitation?

How is he working for anyone else.
And the reason would be it is an anarchist commune, it would be the freest and best society he could hope for, he would not give that up.

So should we or should we not have patents?

Of course not, they are anti-competitive.

The fact that a system with absolutely no regulation has a serious threat of concentrations of power like trusts forming and setting the rules of the game so they do not have to compete with one another.

First I point to the works of the New left as well as Rothbard and libertarian left, that show that private cartels are generally unstable without the state.
As they show the era of the robber barons was actually one of great competition and the anti-trust movements were largely to restrict not increase competition.
Secondly I'm not sure what you are talking about by "a system" , there would be restrictions within the commune, just not outside it, anyone who tries to exploit them and gain power would be combated in self-defence.

 

[SFLRN]

It was mainly through the state.

How could Wal-Mart maintain 300 billion dollar profits if people did not shop there. Didn't the people actively choose to shop at Wal-Mart?

How is he working for anyone else.
And the reason would be it is an anarchist commune, it would be the freest and best society he could hope for, he would not give that up.

He is working for someone else. All the fruit of his labor is shared with others and he does not determine his take home, rather everyone is given aid based off of need and not merit.

Of course not, they are anti-competitive.

This is not true, in the long run. Patents expire and if a company makes an update on a preexisting patent then they can sell that new product. As soon as the patent expires competition resumes. But without that lack of competition for a time producers would not have an incentive to create the product.

First I point to the works of the New left as well as Rothbard and libertarian left, that show that private cartels are generally unstable without the state.
As they show the era of the robber barons was actually one of great competition and the anti-trust movements were largely to restrict not increase competition.
Secondly I'm not sure what you are talking about by "a system" , there would be restrictions within the commune, just not outside it, anyone who tries to exploit them and gain power would be combated in self-defence.

The Anti-trust movement was not funded by these "cartels." Governments can misuse regulation and for that reason you have a much smaller state. However, the facts still remain that we do not see the same kind of trust powers being exerted by the rail-road groups as we once did. Their power fractured and trusts are now outlawed. It is for that same reason that big box retailers save US families 2,300 dollars on average from the competition they create with one another. The simple facts show that big business still competes with one another and that it does benefit us. Certainly we can do a better job enforcing anti-trust regulation but how would anarchism have any method of coping with monopolies?

Wal-Mart has far more such blood on their hands.

I do not support the policies you mentioned. However, even with such distasteful practices these companies are not charging large amounts of money for their services, they are competing with one another and are not exerting monopoly power. There are definately instances where Wal-Mart should be punished for. On the whole, though, big-box retailers do have a benefit.

 

[hereyago]

you need money to make money

 

[Feela]

How could Wal-Mart maintain 300 billion dollar profits if people did not shop there. Didn't the people actively choose to shop at Wal-Mart?

They choose to because of the amount of wal-marts and their product range and lack of competition, all this is due to the state.

He is working for someone else. All the fruit of his labor is shared with others and he does not determine his take home, rather everyone is given aid based off of need and not merit.

The point is that production is a social process,it is impossible to discover the fruits of your labour, because every commodity embodies the labour of generations upon generations, this is what seperates socialism from communism.

This is not true, in the long run. Patents expire and if a company makes an update on a preexisting patent then they can sell that new product. As soon as the patent expires competition resumes. But without that lack of competition for a time producers would not have an incentive to create the product.

It is an artificial monopoly, anyone who is trully for free markets could never support it.
To quote Murray Rothbard.

The man who has not bought a machine and who arrives at the same invention independently, will, on the free market, be perfectly able to use and sell his invention. Patents prevent a man from using his invention even though all the property is his and he has not stolen the invention, either explicitly or implicitly, from the first inventor. Patents, therefore, are grants of exclusive monopoly privilege by the State and are invasions of property rights on the market.

The Anti-trust movement was not funded by these "cartels."

It was for their benefit as the New left and the right and left libertarians around Murray Rothbard showed.
Here's a good article by one of the libertarians.
Roy Childs - Big Business and the Rise of American Statism

As Gabriel Kolko demonstrates in his masterly The Triumph of Conservatism and in Railroads and Regulation, the dominant trend in the last three decades of the nineteenth century and the first two of the twentieth was not towards increasing centralization, but rather, despite the growing number of mergers and the growth in the overall size of many corporations,
toward growing competition. Competition was unacceptable to many key business and financial leaders, and the merger movement was to a large extent a reflection of voluntary, unsuccessful business efforts to bring irresistible trends under control. … As new competitors sprang up, and as economic power was diffused throughout an expanding nation, it became apparent to many important businessmen that only the national government could [control and stabilize] the economy. … Ironically, contrary to the consensus of historians, it was not the existence of monopoly which caused the federal government to intervene in the economy, but the lack of it.

Governments can misuse regulation and for that reason you have a much smaller state. However, the facts still remain that we do not see the same kind of trust powers being exerted by the rail-road groups as we once did.

We have worse.

Their power fractured and trusts are now outlawed.

They have been put under state control,but they still exist.

It is for that same reason that big box retailers save US families 2,300 dollars on average from the competition they create with one another. The simple facts show that big business still competes with one another and that it does benefit us. Certainly we can do a better job enforcing anti-trust regulation but how would anarchism have any method of coping with monopolies?

What kind of anarchism? Obviously it is no problem to anarcho-communism, but in both mutualism and the varieties of anarcho-capitalism that are trully anarchist the point is that without gov't there would be no monopolies because they only exist with the help of the state as do capitalists themselves.
You are a very strange libertarian if you do not believe this, what kind are you?

 

[SFLRN]

They choose to because of the amount of wal-marts and their product range and lack of competition, all this is due to the state.

Or possibly because people choose to shop there because of their low prices? Wal-Mart doesn't have competition, then how do they save American families 2,300 dollars on average, mind you this is from competition from other big box retailers as well. How is it due to the state, what did the state do that forced people to shop and save at Wal-Mart?

It is an artificial monopoly, anyone who is trully for free markets could never support it.
To quote Murray Rothbard.

The man who has not bought a machine and who arrives at the same invention independently, will, on the free market, be perfectly able to use and sell his invention. Patents prevent a man from using his invention even though all the property is his and he has not stolen the invention, either explicitly or implicitly, from the first inventor. Patents, therefore, are grants of exclusive monopoly privilege by the State and are invasions of property rights on the market.

How many instances, would you say, show that one inventor got there in the nick of time before the other? If you have no patent, then how do even those 2 guys protect their product from the 9 other guys who can sell it at a lower price because they did not pay anything for the research? The 2 inventors at the same time is a very limited example. Even with it, that 2nd man can work to improve and differentiate his model and receive a patent. In that way he is encouraged to innovate the product further so he too can make a profit. He might even be able to see what goes wrong with that product and make improvements and profit there. However, what incentive is there to put money into research if you do not have that profit incentive? Isn't it unfair if someone sitting behind you at the University simply did not study but did copy off of you and they received the same A as you, and had all that extra time to do what they want, would that constitute fairness?

It was for their benefit as the New left and the right and left libertarians around Murray Rothbard showed.
Here's a good article by one of the libertarians.
Roy Childs - Big Business and the Rise of American Statism

As Gabriel Kolko demonstrates in his masterly The Triumph of Conservatism and in Railroads and Regulation, the dominant trend in the last three decades of the nineteenth century and the first two of the twentieth was not towards increasing centralization, but rather, despite the growing number of mergers and the growth in the overall size of many corporations,
toward growing competition. Competition was unacceptable to many key business and financial leaders, and the merger movement was to a large extent a reflection of voluntary, unsuccessful business efforts to bring irresistible trends under control. … As new competitors sprang up, and as economic power was diffused throughout an expanding nation, it became apparent to many important businessmen that only the national government could [control and stabilize] the economy. … Ironically, contrary to the consensus of historians, it was not the existence of monopoly which caused the federal government to intervene in the economy, but the lack of it.

So once again, your stance is based on one guy who says that the "consensus" of historians are wrong? Yes or no, should we have anti-trust legislation or not?

We have worse.

Like what?

They have been put under state control,but they still exist.

Of course you can't possibly enforce every sanction of our law, it would be quite hard, we can't catch everyone, but indeed better enforcement of the laws would be the solution and not throwing all of them out.

What kind of anarchism? Obviously it is no problem to anarcho-communism, but in both mutualism and the varieties of anarcho-capitalism that are trully anarchist the point is that without gov't there would be no monopolies because they only exist with the help of the state as do capitalists themselves.
You are a very strange libertarian if you do not believe this, what kind are you?

No you are a normal libertarian if you do not believe that capitalists are people who make their profit off of the ownership of property. Are you a parasitic capitalist when you sell your house? Who are you leeching off of?
lol. Okay, you have consistently said that the state holds up the power of the monopoly, there are examples in a big government where that can happen. But, how would there be no monopolies, what is there in any of your systems to prevent a group of large companies from forming up and setting a uniformly high price in a relatively inelastic demand market? How would your systems accomplish such, and no just pushing the assumption that monopolies magically vanish after the state vanishes will not suffice.

 

[Feela]

Oh suprise suprise, after you accuse me of dodging your points, you don't even BOTHER to reply to my response. I remember an old saying, something involving a pot, a kettle, and one calling the other black.

I wasn't replying to you, I told you check the debate I'm in, I can't be bothered to repeat things here and there.

 

[Feela]

Or possibly because people choose to shop there because of their low prices?

These are because of the state.

Wal-Mart doesn't have competition, then how do they save American families 2,300 dollars on average, mind you this is from competition from other big box retailers as well. How is it due to the state, what did the state do that forced people to shop and save at Wal-Mart?

The state mitigates their costs.

So once again, your stance is based on one guy who says that the "consensus" of historians are wrong? Yes or no, should we have anti-trust legislation or not?

No it is based on the new left like Gabriel Kolko and american style libertarians like Joseph Stromberg, Karl Hess and Murray rothbard.
As an american style "libertarian" you have heard of Murray Rothbard, right?
He is only the founder and most important of the american-style libertarian.

Of course you can't possibly enforce every sanction of our law, it would be quite hard, we can't catch everyone, but indeed better enforcement of the laws would be the solution and not throwing all of them out.

They are generally the work of corportate interests.

No you are a normal libertarian if you do not believe that capitalists are people who make their profit off of the ownership of property.

In the old, fashioned non american sense libertarian just means someone who tries to maximise individual liberty.
It was invented by anarchists 120+ years before the american style libertarians took up the word and was synonymous with anarchism.

lol. Okay, you have consistently said that the state holds up the power of the monopoly, there are examples in a big government where that can happen. But, how would there be no monopolies, what is there in any of your systems to prevent a group of large companies from forming up and setting a uniformly high price in a relatively inelastic demand market? How would your systems accomplish such, and no just pushing the assumption that monopolies magically vanish after the state vanishes will not suffice.

Well this is the general theory of mutualists and american "libertarians" like those who follow austrian economics. Are you an actual libertarian even in the fake american sense?

 

[talloulou]

I don't believe statistics would actually show that the poor are getting poorer. Sure if you compare the bottem 10% to the top 10% the gap between the two may be getting wider but that doesn't mean on average the poor are getting poorer. In fact today you can be a middle class millionaire especially if you own property in California. There are plenty of middle class families that paid $200 thousand for a house decades ago and the very same house is now worth close to a million due to their crazy housing market. So being a millionaire today doesn't mean what it might've decades ago.

So if you're talking about the United States, which I assume you are then I'd argue the poor are not in fact "getting poorer" and that's just a phrase that's thrown around. If you look at "material" items bought by Americans the poor today have way more $hit than the poor in the past had. We're all getting richer. The poor are not regressing. It also depends on how you classify the "poor." It's quite possible for a family today to have 2 cars, multiple tv's, and still be counted amoung the poor.

Also many times individuals considered "poor" may not be considered "poor" 10 years from now. People generally move up with age. So the idea that the poor are getting poorer and that those in that catagory will stagnate and always be poor is incredibly false.

 

[Voidwar]

you'd instantly realise labour is the only productive human behaviour.

So Doctors and Artists and Counselors are a waste of skin eh ?

Your views on economics are not just overly simplistic, they are the views of an overt simpleton.

 

[SFLRN]

These are because of the state.
The state mitigates their costs.

You keep throwing out these assertions that people are choosing to shop at wal-mart because of the state. But what proof, who actually claims, that people shop at Wal-Mart because of our government and not because of our low prices. Have you actually been inside a Wal-Mart? Have you actually shopped at one yourself?

No it is based on the new left like Gabriel Kolko and american style libertarians like Joseph Stromberg, Karl Hess and Murray rothbard.
As an american style "libertarian" you have heard of Murray Rothbard, right?
He is only the founder and most important of the american-style libertarian.

Yes, simply because a group labels themselves as libertarians does not mean they are automatically correct in everything they say.
You're associating Murray with the American Style Libertarian. Considering you actually do not live in America, I doubt your ability to label what a group of millions specifically believes. You do not have to be an anarcho-capitalist, or which ever term you prefer, to have the set of views libertarians tend to have. Although I cannot speak for all libertarians, it is more likely that American Libertarians are more resemblant to Milton Friedman, not anarcho-capitalists.

They are generally the work of corportate interests.

What big corporate interest did Microsoft have in losing their anti-trust law? You keep rambling on about this, but you're not providing proof that our system would be better with absolutely no anti-trust regulation.

Well this is the general theory of mutualists and american "libertarians" like those who follow austrian economics. Are you an actual libertarian even in the fake american sense?

Once again, you're not answering my question. How would your general theory of mutualism prevent the formation of monopolies? You haven't answered this. You spend your time questioning my political stance but not answering the actual question at hand.

 

[Synch]

The reference I need is in a book in my apartment in Tulsa (I think) and I'm going to be there tomorrow, so I'll look it up then. In the meantime, I did find this rather interesting article:

Is Your Boss a Psychopath?

The situation is a very simple one. Sociopaths are a certain kind of antisocial person that have no conscience. They have no ability to empathize with others, never have, and so see other people as simply tools they can use to get what they want--other people are about as morally important as, say, a wrench or a chair. Such people therefore think nothing of, say, firing a whole bunch of people and doubling the work load of the people who remain, thus cutting costs. Sociopaths are often smart, charming, and manipulative, and so they are able to get those people to stay and work the extra long hours. Or pick your own example--you should be able to think of plenty after reading the article. I will come back and post the reference to the study in a couple of days.

Assuming they are psychopaths, we shouldn't resent them just because they're psychopaths, unless there's an independent reason why these people who are function well in society should be punished I see no reason why they should be ostracized.

1) A certain amount of whimsy goes into almost any purchase. People aren't really able to value a commodity precisely. One day, I might be willing to pay a hundred dollars for a clock, another day only fifty. The notion that, in aggregate, the individual valuations arrive at a real value seems flawed.

The marginal value of something depends on its value to the consumer, the real "value" of something changes with correlations with consumer taste + marginal benefit which relies on scarcity. Clocks are a frivolous commodity, the cost of clocks depend on taste, for example there's a clock that's 1.5 million dollars but I can buy a clock that can function in terms of time-telling for 20.

2) Worse, some commodities don't really have much marginal value. What other use for food am I going to make besides eating it? Am I going to be willing to do without food to purchase a car?

That's why the price of all food in general is relatively stable, but just because it is so does not give any justification for governmental intervention.

3) Especially with regard to labor, people can be conditioned to accept less than what their labor might be worth. Consider this example:

Suppose a wealthy business owner pays 5 dollars an hour to his workers. One day, they all strike and he is unable to hire anyone who has the skills they possessed. So he negotiates a pay raise to ten dollars an hour, and they come back to work doing exactly the same jobs as before.

The idea of marginal value where labor is concerned would say that during the time before the strike, the value of the workers' labor was 5 dollars an hour. Afterwards, it was ten dollars an hour. But it seems clear that, even assuming the threat of strike was not clear to the factory owner and the possibility was not clear to the workers, ten dollars an hour was always the correct valuation.

Your hypothetical situation showed an example of market failure with one party have too much market power which influences the price and quantity of something above or below optimum equilibrium levels, that's why unions are not beneficial to society, they impose market power on society, in a RL situation a pay raise would never double as in your situation, in a true free market the employer would be able to seek new employees.

If the business owner did capitulate and his business was still function as described in your HS, then he must have had exerted his own market power before as a monopsony or else his business would certainly not be able to survive after the pay raise, without market power the marginal value of something cannot change.

Not one of those links provided any kind of argument for the proposition that "due to Globalization the management skills at the top are more useful than ever." They all seemed to say that top execs are making more money because they're ostensibly providing more value to their shareholders, but that does nothing to show that top management skills are more useful than at any time in the past thanks to Globalization. If you've got an argument that shows exactly that, state it, or if you think I've missed it among the articles you posted, please summarize.

China | Rich man, poor man | Economist.com

The first rule in to avoid harming the very miracle that generates so much wealth. Take for instance the arguments about high executive pay. Some say this is simply a matter of governance --- and forcingcompany boards to work better. If only it were that simple. High pay is, by and large, the price needed to attract and motivate gifted managers, as our special report argues in this issue. The abuses of companies such as Home depot obscure how most high pay has been caused not by powerful bosses fixing their own wages, but by the changing job of chief executive, the growth of large companies and the competitive market for talent. Executive-pay restrictions would not put that horse back in its box, but they would harm companies.

How does a free competitive market decide what someone deserves? In light of the article I posted above, it appears to go quite awry in that regard.

Also, surely you don't think we actually have a free competetive market?

Jiang Jieshi once said "We become what we do", just because in mind a person is not virtuous does not disqualify him to become virtuous, if these psychopaths are functioning normally in a just society in framework no one can judge them.

No of course our market is not free, but it's the 4th freest in the world.

For your position to be correct, you cannot invoke luck. I agree that luck is the deciding factor, and that's why the present system is unfair. Most wealthy people are extraordinarily lucky; plenty of other people entered the marketplace with just as much ability but did not do as well thanks to luck.

You cannot determine the amount of luckiness, doing so would require a totalitarian regime that tracks down every moment of our lives, and that's patently unjust, thus without knowledge you can't make just judgments, so they were lucky, that does not give you to right to take wealth away from them, in addition all sorts of problems arise out of this, for example.

How would you know if the person wealthy was really lucky or not? There are many millionaires, you might look at one and say he's been lucky and does not merit his wealth, but there are winners and losers at each level, maybe that millionaire had the potential and would've became a billionaire if not for his bad luck, taxing him beyond reasonable levels would further deprive him of the situation his natural abilities merit.

By all means I would like to tax people who did not merit their wealth like Paris Hilton, etc, but that would not be feasible, and never will be.

That is one of my premises. From this, we can conclude that positions such as politicomind's (that poor people deserve their lot because they're all lazy addicted sex-crazed retards) are untenable. We can also conclude that programs which offer prejudicial help to the poor (with enough oversight to prevent abuse) are a means of leveling the playing field.

You know that there are more groups than "poor" and "rich" right? There's also a middle class, a transition from the poor to the rich, if you do not deserve to be poor you will escape poverty, those people inured to perennial poverty do deserve to be there.

Yet just a post ago you were implying that a majority of billionaires are self-made. I reiterate that this is clearly not correct. The wealthy overwhelmingly tend to be born with advantages that make all the difference.

Overwhelmingly? These progeny are not wealthy because of inheritance, they were given great opportunities yes but the cause of their success of themselves, their advantages just accentuated it, without merit a wealthy family cannot last a generation or two within a free market.

I was using them to point out the flaw in his reasoning--he starts out with "tend to" and concludes with "so if you're poor, it's because you're a dumbass."

That is the rule, but there are exceptions, however it would be preposterous to suggest we base policy on the exception rather than the rule, that happened with Intelligence on Iraq, look what happened.

I'm only moderately familiar with Nozick. What is his definition of virtue?

Essentially enforcement of the Entitlement Principle was predicated a just-framework for government, anything beyond a minimal state that enforced property rights is unjust.

 

[Synch]

Of what statement? Nothing I've said is contradicted by any evolutionary theory I've ever read. If you've got some kind of substantive objection, please be kind enough to state it plainly. Until then, the argument can only be about meta-objects.

Let me quote you a piece from the Selfish Gene.

Given that a species not interested in procreation is a species without a future, why would we think it a good arrangement to punish someone for procreation qua procreation?

Individuals who have too many children are penalized, not because the whole population goes extinct, but simply because fewer of their children survive. Genes for having too many children are just not passed on to the next generation in large numbers, because few of the children bearing these genes reach adulthood. What happened in modern civilized man is that family sizes are no longer limited by finite resources that individuals parents can provide. If a husband and wife have more children than they can feed, the state, which means the rest of the population, simply steps in and keeps the surplus children alive and healthy. This is, in fact, nothing to stop a couple with no material resources at all and rearing precisely as many children as the woman can physically bear. Bu the welfare state is a very unnatural thing. In nature parents who need more children than they can suppot do not have many grandchildren, and their genes are not passed on to a future generations. There is no need for altruistic restrain in the brith-rate, because there is no welfare state in nature. Any gene for overindulgence is promptly punished: the children containing that gene starve. Since we humans do not want to return to the old selfish ways where we let the children of too-large families starve to death, we have abolished the family as a unit of economic self-sufficiecy, and we substituted the state. But the privilege of guaranteed support for children should not be abused.

I think I understand what you're saying...I think they go hand in hand. If you give a million dollars to someone who is used to never having more than a hundred, they'll often quickly blow it. But that person can be taught what to do with the money, and so improve themselves. However, if they didn't grow up in a culture that will teach them what to do, they are not initially equipped with those skills.

People can change, but often need help.

I understand what you're saying, but I don't see it as being feasible, to root out the problem we would need massive amounts of federal dollars, something we don't have right now, and many violation of civil rights that the multi-culturalist crowd in our country would not accept, all cultures are not created equal and there is indeed a best one that will equip everyone to be successful in life, however that would involve abolishing an inferior culture, and to many that is unacceptable.

In answer to your question: who knows? It may be that the wealthy have too long been accustomed to a relatively less rigorous life than have the poor, and would die out in one generation. It may also be that the wealthy prosper well beyond what the poor do.

I've lived in poor neighborhoods before, and have also lived in wealthy neighborhoods and known lots of both poor and rich people. If I were a betting man, I would bet on the poor, but not at very long odds. Poverty tends to make one quite resourceful. Moreover, in my experience wealth can, but does not always, lead to clumsiness. There are quite a few wealthy people that are sharp as tacks and driven not to give up for anything, but there are also quite a few that depend on a vast support system to keep them going, and would be utterly undone by the prospect of starting anew.

But this is a moot point, because your example now assumes the same environmental starting place for both. It is my contention that environment--the luck of the birth lottery--is a far greater determinant of wealth than anything else. Examples that do not take this into account miss the point.

You're still not getting my point, ceteris paribus we're not making assumptions on the rich or the poor except for their congenital abilities, not in life experiences that might have influences them to be who they are today.

I disagree that, in praxis, it accurately describes real value.

What do you suggest then? And please, something feasible.

 

[Feela]

You keep throwing out these assertions that people are choosing to shop at wal-mart because of the state. But what proof, who actually claims, that people shop at Wal-Mart because of our government and not because of our low prices. Have you actually been inside a Wal-Mart? Have you actually shopped at one yourself?

Gov't creates the low prices.

Yes, simply because a group labels themselves as libertarians does not mean they are automatically correct in everything they say.
You're associating Murray with the American Style Libertarian. Considering you actually do not live in America, I doubt your ability to label what a group of millions specifically believes. You do not have to be an anarcho-capitalist, or which ever term you prefer, to have the set of views libertarians tend to have. Although I cannot speak for all libertarians, it is more likely that American Libertarians are more resemblant to Milton Friedman, not anarcho-capitalists.

Milton Freidman is a statist and a moron, I think it was him who said it doesn't matter how unrealistic the assumptions of a theory, it only matters if they predict reality correctly.
And Murray Rothbard was pretty much the founder of american style libertarianism, you seriously haven't heard of him?

Murray Newton Rothbard (March 2, 1926 – January 7, 1995) was a highly influential American economist, historian and natural law theorist belonging to the Austrian School of Economics who helped define modern libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism.

For modern read american libertarian party style.

What big corporate interest did Microsoft have in losing their anti-trust law?

Probably other capitalists had an interest in it, they are not homogenous, there are factions.

You keep rambling on about this, but you're not providing proof that our system would be better with absolutely no anti-trust regulation.

Huh? You don't seem to understand what Mutualism is, in mutualism there wouldn't be capitalists let alone corporations, all markets would be decentralised, there would be no danger of trusts, and as history has proved private trusts fall apart quickly anyway.

Once again, you're not answering my question. How would your general theory of mutualism prevent the formation of monopolies? You haven't answered this. You spend your time questioning my political stance but not answering the actual question at hand.

Mutualists believe that without the state there can't be capitalists let alone corporations, only artisans and workers co-ops.

 

[Feela]

Yeah, I'm sure that you addressed the point of you accusing me (someone who is not participating in said debate) of dodging your points when they've clearly been adressed in that debate.

Listen, if you don't want to debate me, I'll take your concession.

Huh? I pretty sure I didn't say what you just quoted, and yes I take your concession of defeat.

 

[SFLRN]

Gov't creates the low prices..

How does government create low prices? Maybe they do it through tariffs that raise the price of imported goods (which would hurt big firms like wal-mart.)

And Murray Rothbard was pretty much the founder of american style libertarianism, you seriously haven't heard of him?.

Murray Newton Rothbard (March 2, 1926 – January 7, 1995) was a highly influential American economist, historian and natural law theorist belonging to the Austrian School of Economics who helped define modern libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism..

I have heard of Rothbard. I disagree with Rothbard. You do not have to be an anarcho-capitalist to be a libertarian. You do not have to agree with everything one man or woman says to be a libertarian.
You keep asserting that one is a statist if they support any government at all. This goes against the actual definition of statism and paints a picture that is purely black and white. If I were to say all socialists have to believe this you would say that is incorrect. You are doing the exact same thing to libertarians; you are continously asserting that libertarians must fit a certain mold to be libertarians at all.

Probably other capitalists had an interest in it, they are not homogenous, there are factions..

Probably does not equate to proof. Furthermore, if this is true (that other capitalists had a stack in shooting Microsoft down) does it not prove that captialists are keeping one another in check?

Huh? You don't seem to understand what Mutualism is, in mutualism there wouldn't be capitalists let alone corporations, all markets would be decentralised, there would be no danger of trusts, and as history has proved private trusts fall apart quickly anyway..

Two problems with this argument. Firstly, if private trusts fall apart quickly then doesn't history prove that the state is unable to, or does not uphold monopolies? Lastly, you are assuming there would be no concentration of power without the state. It is an unsupported assumption. What interest do these individuals have in not forming a trust?

Mutualists believe that without the state there can't be capitalists let alone corporations, only artisans and workers co-ops.

Mutualists believe but do not prove. How would there not be people acting in their own interest? What would prevent people from attaining capital

 

[Feela]

If you don't want to concede, than debate me. I'm sorry, but I don't offer a cowards way out, you either debate me or leave with the understanding that your departure is mutually accepted as you admitting that you've lost.

Didn't you read my post, I said that what you have quoted me as saying was said by someone else, so why the hell would that mean I lose if I don't reply?

 

[ashurbanipal]

Assuming they are psychopaths, we shouldn't resent them just because they're psychopaths, unless there's an independent reason why these people who are function well in society should be punished...

The independent reason is that they're highly destructive. I marvel at how anyone can look at the economics of the world today and think it's a good thing. Sociopaths may have human-looking flesh and bones, but they are not human in any sense of the word.

The marginal value of something depends on its value to the consumer, the real "value" of something changes with correlations with consumer taste + marginal benefit which relies on scarcity. Clocks are a frivolous commodity, the cost of clocks depend on taste, for example there's a clock that's 1.5 million dollars but I can buy a clock that can function in terms of time-telling for 20.

I'm not sure I understand how this is a reply to what I said. I was making a criticism of the theory of marginal value.

That's why the price of all food in general is relatively stable, but just because it is so does not give any justification for governmental intervention.

I agree that this does not justify government involvement; I think other things do justify it.

Your hypothetical situation showed an example of market failure with one party have too much market power which influences the price and quantity of something above or below optimum equilibrium levels, that's why unions are not beneficial to society, they impose market power on society, in a RL situation a pay raise would never double as in your situation, in a true free market the employer would be able to seek new employees.

But you miss the point-how do you justify the free market definition of value in the first place? I don't think it's anything more than oft-repeated dogma. It "functions" in the real world only because we've made the definition of functional reflexive.

If the business owner did capitulate and his business was still function as described in your HS, then he must have had exerted his own market power before as a monopsony or else his business would certainly not be able to survive after the pay raise, without market power the marginal value of something cannot change.

The idea was that his business did not collapse. We find this situation at least somewhat plausible; stories like those of Dennis Kozlowski and Tyco tend to bear out the idea that at least some businesses behave like this.

Take for instance the arguments about high executive pay. Some say this is simply a matter of governance --- and forcing company boards to work better. If only it were that simple.

I don't think that's the argument at all. The question is why, when the economy grows, and when productivity increases, only those at the very top reap the rewards? No one would claim that the top management of any company that has exploded into global dominance is actually doing all the work necessary to achieve that?

High pay is, by and large, the price needed to attract and motivate gifted managers

Whereas when pay wasn't that high, they were frolicking amongst the daffodils?

as our special report argues in this issue. The abuses of companies such as Home depot obscure how most high pay has been caused not by powerful bosses fixing their own wages, but by the changing job of chief executive, the growth of large companies and the competitive market for talent. Executive-pay restrictions would not put that horse back in its box, but they would harm companies.

I seriously doubt it. Those CEOs will continue to work for what they can.

Jiang Jieshi once said "We become what we do", just because in mind a person is not virtuous does not disqualify him to become virtuous, if these psychopaths are functioning normally in a just society in framework no one can judge them.

But the blindingly obvious point is that they are not functioning normally. Rather, they are a bunch of callous and bloodthirsty villains who care not one whit for anybody but themselves. And they're the ones running the show. Now, explain to me why there's not something wrong with that. If you had ever met and had intimate contact with an actual sociopath, you'd understand immediately what I mean. When you really get to know a sociopath, they'll start to make your hair stand on end--a sociopath has absolutely no internal moral restriction of any kind. There's no internal mechanism that stops them from pulling out a pistol and shooting you in the face over dinner on a whim; their only fear is getting caught. As they happen to have generally become masters of deception, it's considered likely that most of them do those sorts of things, or their moral equivalents, with some frequency. Take some time to run that scenario in your head--consider what it would take for you to calmly pull out a .45 and shoot your child in the head while eating spaghetti, and feel absolutely nothing over the incident, and you'll get an idea what it's like to be a sociopath. Not all CEO's are sociopaths by any means, but I suspect it's more common than you'd think.

No of course our market is not free, but it's the 4th freest in the world.

1) That doesn't matter. I may be the fourth best surgeon at General Hospital, but if all the surgery patients at that hospital die, I'm still not a very good surgeon.

You cannot determine the amount of luckiness, doing so would require a totalitarian regime that tracks down every moment of our lives, and that's patently unjust, thus without knowledge you can't make just judgments, so they were lucky, that does not give you to right to take wealth away from them

No, but what ought to give me the right is what they did with their good fortune.

How would you know if the person wealthy was really lucky or not?

The answer is obvious--anyone looking at the story of their lives can determine to what extent luck played a role.

There are many millionaires, you might look at one and say he's been lucky and does not merit his wealth, but there are winners and losers at each level, maybe that millionaire had the potential and would've became a billionaire if not for his bad luck, taxing him beyond reasonable levels would further deprive him of the situation his natural abilities merit.

Part of my point is that we've set up the system (or rather, allowed it to be set up) so as to value the wrong abilities, and it's going to get us in serious trouble very soon. Right now, our economy values aggressiveness and ruthlessness. It values disregard for the environment, disregard for the disadvantaged, and near-total myopeia. Many now living will see the end result of this, and it won't be pretty at all. Indeed, it will be a sociopath's paradise.

By all means I would like to tax people who did not merit their wealth like Paris Hilton, etc, but that would not be feasible, and never will be.

I agree it won't happen under the current system, since it is run by people who don't merit (most of) their wealth. But why would it be not feasible?

You know that there are more groups than "poor" and "rich" right? There's also a middle class, a transition from the poor to the rich, if you do not deserve to be poor you will escape poverty, those people inured to perennial poverty do deserve to be there.

You seem to have misunderstood the nature of my comments, which were meant as a specific reply to an offensive and wrong-headed post made by Politicomind.

Of course I recognize there are many economic classes, and sub-classes within those classes. But your assertion that only those who deserve to will escape poverty is nonsense, for reasons I've already belabored. But just because I'm that kind of guy, I'll sum them up here:

We typically don't think that "luck" has anything to do with what someone deserves. Consider an example that's got little to do with economics:

Suppose there are two candidates for a liver transplant. One candidate needs a new liver because he spent a lifetime drinking and doing lots of drugs. He's generally a not-so-savory character who (assuming we are omniscient for the moment) has in fact murdered a few innocent people in his drug-crazed binges and gotten away with it. He's currently clean because he doesn't want to get kicked off the transplant list, but he still practices cruelty and malice on anyone that crosses his path. He's what most people would think of as a bad man.

The other candidate is a fifteen year old girl who has tried to live her whole life so far taking care of others and being kind. She's got a lot of talent as a writer, and at least has the potential to produce some masterpieces of literature. She needs a new liver because when she was 12, she was maliciously attacked and raped by someone who, during the attack, gave her a bad case of Hepatitis C. Her liver is now failing. She is what most people would think of as a good and promising young person.

A liver becomes available for harvest, but as luck would have it, it's a match for the old guy, not the young girl. We recognize that this is the luck of the draw, but we also recognize that the young girl deserves a transplant far more than does the old drug-addict.

Politicomind was making a claim that I take to be equivalent to saying that the reverse is true--that personal fortune defines who deserves what. Under Politicomind's philosophy, if the old guy gets the liver, then he is more worthy than the young girl who doesn't.

I showed, earlier in this thread, that luck plays a much bigger role than what people on your side of the fence typically want to admit. If someone remains in poverty throughout their life, it is largely due to luck, and not whether they actually deserve to escape poverty, just as it is luck that often determines how wealthy someone ends up being.

Overwhelmingly? These progeny are not wealthy because of inheritance, they were given great opportunities yes but the cause of their success of themselves, their advantages just accentuated it, without merit a wealthy family cannot last a generation or two within a free market.

This has nothing to do with the point. Take those wealthy families, strip them of social contacts and assets, and put them to work making minimum wage, and they'll likely stay there.

Warren Buffet got a hundred thousand dollars to start his first investment fund, donated by friends and family. There are likely to be any number of people with at least a portion of his ability, who aren't lucky enough to know people who can donate a hundred thousand dollars. Warren Buffet's family had political connections. Very few people in poverty, or even in the middle class, have such connections.

Ditto on most of the names mentioned in the article.

 

[ashurbanipal]

That is the rule, but there are exceptions, however it would be preposterous to suggest we base policy on the exception rather than the rule, that happened with Intelligence on Iraq, look what happened.

Nonsense. If you've got some evidence to back this claim up that doesn't suffer from some fatal flaw, post it.

Originally Posted by Dawkins, Richard (1976) The Selfish Gene: Family Planning: 117
Individuals who have too many children are penalized, not because the whole population goes extinct, but simply because fewer of their children survive.

I still don't understand how this contradicts a thing I said. I asked why it would be a good arrangement to punish someone for procreation qua procreation, given that procreation is necessary to carry on the species.

I understand about issues of overpopulation, but the quote you've posted makes things far too simplistic. Suppose there are only two mothers in a given species, one of them having five progeny and the other ten. They're both past child-bearing age. The one with fewer children's children suffer some kind of accident; suddenly those ten remaining children don't seem quite so excessive. Many species of social animals, especially mammals, have a kind of welfare. Elephants, for instance, will protect not only their own young but those of others in their herd. Nor will they linger too long in a place where there isn't enough food for all.

Now I'm not saying that people ought to be rewarded for having children these days--quite the contrary. Rather, I was responding to Politicomind's post, who I expected to stray into some very foolish territory on this point. Had he said something to the effect that the earth is simply overpopulated and we can't afford to be letting everyone reproduce in an unfettered manner, I would have agreed. However, what he said was rather different.

I understand what you're saying, but I don't see it as being feasible

It might be a lot more feasible if we stopped fighting wars, got a little more long-sighted, and did something serious about the income gap.

to root out the problem we would need massive amounts of federal dollars, something we don't have right now, and many violation of civil rights that the multi-culturalist crowd in our country would not accept, all cultures are not created equal and there is indeed a best one that will equip everyone to be successful in life, however that would involve abolishing an inferior culture, and to many that is unacceptable.

What I said above aside, I agree that this is not going to happen. To some extent, all my posts on this topic are mere "Told ya so's!" At this point, for reasons that have partially to do with the matter under discussion and partially not, I don't think there's any way to avoid a huge trainwreck that will make the apocalypse of John look tame. My only hope is that, as we go down, everyone gets a moment of clarity and realizes what happened, so we can pass on to the survivors some kind of wisdom for how not to do things again. I'm sure this sounds crazy to you, but remember what I am saying now and look at the world in five years and ask whether what I'm talking about makes a little more sense then (see especially my posts in the science forum re: peak oil).

You're still not getting my point, ceteris paribus we're not making assumptions on the rich or the poor except for their congenital abilities, not in life experiences that might have influences them to be who they are today.

And I'm saying that the congenital abilities of each are about the same, or perhaps a little greater among the poor. I have posted what I take to be very powerful evidence that the supposed "ability" of the rich is more accurately ascribed to luck. My answer is that if you separate the rich and poor and give them each exactly the same primitive starting conditions, wait a thousand years, and look at what developed, I would bet on the poor being better off than the rich.

It's hard to say because I acknowledge that there are some really lazy and stupid poor people, and some rich people who are sharp as tacks and very hard workers. But in general, I think most of the rich people of the world have been playing in a rigged game, and it's made them sloppy. The poor, on the other hand, have had to learn to survive in the face of serious adversity, and generally have a better ability to cooperate with each other than do the rich, who are too focussed on competition.

Assuming that we just dump everyone naked on these distinct but identical planets, I think quite a few of the rich are going to spend a lot of time feeling quite sorry for themselves at having to endure very harsh conditions. The poor will have lost comparatively little, and so will get on with the business of survival more readily.

Considering ability alone, I don't think there's any reason to prefer one over the other.

But two points that I think make this an entirely moot point:

1) I don't think it's legitimate at all to try to consider ability as distinct from tendency.

2) The thought experiment does not address my point, which was that starting conditions and ongoing environmental conditions influence everything.

To see this point, change up the experiment somewhat. Put the rich on one planet and the poor on another, but make it so that the rich are put on a desert planet, with harsh climate, limited resources, and conditions that prevent travel and the exchange of ideas. The poor are put on a planet much like the earth of three centuries ago--plenty of resources that you have to be smart about extracting. Who is ahead a thousand years later? If the rich don't make good, should we blame them?

What do you suggest then? And please, something feasible.

Depends on what you mean by feasible. We can institute almost any law, so in one sense pretty much anything that is physically possible is feasible. But in another sense, I don't think anything is likely to change our current systems since the people in charge of those systems are making far too good a living maintaining the status quo. In general, I am for an economic system that combines socialism and capitalism, along with basic revisions to the principles of property rights.

 

[Feela]

How does government create low prices? Maybe they do it through tariffs that raise the price of imported goods (which would hurt big firms like wal-mart.)

They do it through cost mitigation and subsidy, like building roads, infastucture etc etc

I have heard of Rothbard. I disagree with Rothbard. You do not have to be an anarcho-capitalist to be a libertarian. You do not have to agree with everything one man or woman says to be a libertarian.

I don't believe you had heard of him before this conversation.

You keep asserting that one is a statist if they support any government at all.

Well duh

.This goes against the actual definition of statism and paints a picture that is purely black and white.

It sure does.

If I were to say all socialists have to believe this you would say that is incorrect. You are doing the exact same thing to libertarians; you are continously asserting that libertarians must fit a certain mold to be libertarians at all.

Libertarian just means you wish to want to maxmise individual liberty, you are thinking of the american style.

Probably does not equate to proof. Furthermore, if this is true (that other capitalists had a stack in shooting Microsoft down) does it not prove that captialists are keeping one another in check?

You could say that, but they're not doing it for our benefit.

Two problems with this argument. Firstly, if private trusts fall apart quickly then doesn't history prove that the state is unable to, or does not uphold monopolies?

It upholds oligopolies.

Lastly, you are assuming there would be no concentration of power without the state. It is an unsupported assumption. What interest do these individuals have in not forming a trust?

Well this is the mutualist(and austrian.) belief.

Mutualists believe but do not prove. How would there not be people acting in their own interest? What would prevent people from attaining capital

Because there would be no official currency so mutualist think people would form mutual banks where you get loans for very low interest,under 1%(the labour cost of banking) due to competition in response you would agree to use their currency.
This goes with the general mutualist belief that in a completely free market competition would reduce all things to their labour costs.

 

[SFLRN]

They do it through cost mitigation and subsidy, like building roads, infrastructure etc etc

What subsidies have the U.S. government given to Wal-Mart? What evidence suggests that these subsidies are responsible for Wal-Mart's "always low" prices? Now I will agree that building roads and implementing certain infrastructure is conducive to Wal-Mart success. However, these investments in infrastructure are necessary for the success of most American businesses. This infrastructure allows for the formation of a dynamic economy and allows for the people of this economy to have opportunities they would not otherwise have had. It would be nearly impossible for someone to privately develop a multi-entry road system without significant costs and prices to help make sure people pay. This kind of system would directly disenfranchise the poor you proclaim to love. Then this begs the question, how would a mutualist system allow for the building of roads which facilitate economic growth? (To clarify I am speaking of large and extensive roadways that cover a vast expanse of land).

Libertarian just means you wish to want to maximize individual liberty, you are thinking of the American style.

That is the principle behind the belief. That doesn't mean all libertarians believe you maximize individual liberty in the same way. Some individuals believe it is through no government. Others believe that a government is needed. This does not make one a libertarian and one not a libertarian, it simply means they have different views on how to do it.

You could say that, but they're not doing it for our benefit.

You're right, they're doing it to maximize profit. Its what happens as a result that matters. When they do compete and try and take each other down we all benefit. I will grant that there are exceptions and that those exceptions should be punishable by a legal system. However, when these companies compete selfishly we all win. For that very same reason Big-box retailers and the competition they create saves the American family on average 2,300 dollars. This is certainly a benefit any way we slice it.

It upholds oligopolies.

Trusts are oligopolies and you say they collapse after a certain time. Even if you are simply referring to big business the fact remains that these are not the only kind of businesses. Those large businesses are also given power not by the state, but by the people who choose to buy their products. Take an example, many liberal minded Americans went to see Fahrenheit 9/11. This movie criticized the current administration. If government had ultimate control over who gets what in capitalism then this movie would have never surfaced on every major cinema. However, because the people had consumer sovereignty they were able to bring the movie into the theaters.
98% of all businesses are small businesses. The fact is that small businesses still have a sizable stake in the overall market.

Because there would be no official currency so mutualist think people would form mutual banks where you get loans for very low interest, under 1%(the labour cost of banking) due to competition in response you would agree to use their currency.
This goes with the general mutualist belief that in a completely free market competition would reduce all things to their labour costs.

But what would stop these bankers from saying, hey, we can make a lot more profit if we all combine and charge an identical rate? It wouldn't hurt any of them, they would still make profits and not have the strain of competition.