Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Free Market

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Cryptocode View Post
    I do see it a different way. From my view you seem to continually conflate small with backwards and poor. Laz and I were addressing the question of freedom and liberty. You seem to want to change that question to technical progress, large, and rich. I don't see those 3 things as related.
    Abstractly, they're unrelated, but I am talking about the real world, where family and community and county and state and nation and industry and research institutions and banks are not totally separable in a very complex system.

    I want to bring "the real world" into the equation any time that someone discusses a massive change like a much smaller government. I *get* your argument. I'm locally democratic and nationally republican (as redundant as that sounds), so I get elements of both sides. If you want to discuss something like a small, community-based government with no umbrella, then let's go there and flesh out all of the ramifications of such a statement. Otherwise, we're grazing fools with green fantasies.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Cryptocode View Post
      For example, my first job, in the 50's, was in The Advanced Theoretical Research Lab of a private company. In those earlier years research was primarily done by private companies many of which had research labs. More recently research of all kinds has been not only taken over by Gov't, but Gov't has legally preempted the rights of private companies from doing many kinds of research, thus almost completely reducing competition, and the economic decline since that time has also ended such competition.

      The first big Gov't research project was in the 1930's and 40's with the Atomic bomb. The first big building project was likewise done prior to the A-bomb with the Hoover Dam.
      This is one of many examples where the government appears to have overstepped its bounds. I'm unsure of a legitimate reason for preventing certain research. Perhaps, preventing genetic engineering, human experimentation, and/or weapon production? All three are serious issues, but if monitored, their related fields of genetics and nuclear physics are incredibly promising.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Rojo View Post
        The Tragedy of the Commons has been misunderstood for a long time. The Tragedy doesn't happen if the Commons are managed by a community that needs them for their survival.
        That sure doesn't help those elephants that keep getting slaughtered, for example. Bureaucrats and game wardens in sub-Saharan Africa don't give a damn about them. If poachers kill none or if they kill a few dozen, they'll still get their paychecks. They have no financial incentive to protect them.

        If I was wealthy and owned a herd of elephants, for whatever reason, I'd spend as much money as I'd need to protect them. If poachers tried to hurt or kill animals that I'm spending valuable time and money to take care of, at best, I'd have them thrown in a cage. At worst, I'd shoot them. That's probably why cattle rustling isn't too big a problem where I live. Ranchers have every incentive to protect them.

        Originally posted by Rojo View Post
        It's both. The majority is supposed to make law/policy.
        And as far as the Constitution is concerned, the majority can make decisions in some areas, but not all of them. If the majority in Congress wants to buy new ships for the Navy, that's constitutional. If the majority wants to ban people from practicing a certain religion, that's unconstitutional.
        In matters of style, swim with the current. In matters of principle, stand like a rock.

        This message has been intercepted by the NSA, the only branch of government that listens.

        Comment


        • In my belief the following is the most wrong thing with our society these days;

          Our leaders/ governments/ CEO's don't have any "skin in the game".

          They make decisions outside of themselves, their decisions have very little negative personal impact. Also today's elite benefit greatly from upside risk, but have almost inoculated them selfs from downside risk, deferring the negative consequences to the everyday man.

          A companies "Limited liability" is a massive social problem.

          Basically all the big players get immensely personally rewarded for good performance but don't get personally punished for poor performance. This exists nowhere else on the planet and hasn't existed in history.

          When a Middle Ages king decided to go to war against neighbours, if it was a poor decision, he usually died for that decision on the battle field. He had "skin in the game".

          If a high flying money manager suffered personal losses on par with the losses he sometimes makes for his clients, there would be no financial system crashes. He has no "skin in the game"


          Sent from my iPhone
          A little primal gem - My Success Story
          Weight lost in 4 months - 29kg (64 lbs)

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Jefferson1775 View Post
            That sure doesn't help those elephants that keep getting slaughtered, for example. Bureaucrats and game wardens in sub-Saharan Africa don't give a damn about them. If poachers kill none or if they kill a few dozen, they'll still get their paychecks. They have no financial incentive to protect them.

            If I was wealthy and owned a herd of elephants, for whatever reason, I'd spend as much money as I'd need to protect them. If poachers tried to hurt or kill animals that I'm spending valuable time and money to take care of, at best, I'd have them thrown in a cage. At worst, I'd shoot them. That's probably why cattle rustling isn't too big a problem where I live. Ranchers have every incentive to protect them.

            I'm having visions of a bunch of guys in western gear on horses, the whole group dwarfed by a single elephant, trying to round up the elephant herd.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by dilberryhoundog View Post
              In my belief the following is the most wrong thing with our society these days;

              Our leaders/ governments/ CEO's don't have any "skin in the game".

              They make decisions outside of themselves, their decisions have very little negative personal impact. Also today's elite benefit greatly from upside risk, but have almost inoculated them selfs from downside risk, deferring the negative consequences to the everyday man.

              A companies "Limited liability" is a massive social problem.

              Basically all the big players get immensely personally rewarded for good performance but don't get personally punished for poor performance. This exists nowhere else on the planet and hasn't existed in history.

              When a Middle Ages king decided to go to war against neighbours, if it was a poor decision, he usually died for that decision on the battle field. He had "skin in the game".

              If a high flying money manager suffered personal losses on par with the losses he sometimes makes for his clients, there would be no financial system crashes. He has no "skin in the game"


              Sent from my iPhone
              Legal ramifications like life sentences are "skin in the game". Bernie *Madoff* got caught before he "made off" with the money, and he was penalized. I take a view closer to yours in instances like this though. Life in a maximum security prison with all play and no work is not hard enough punishment.

              However, even if good, honest money managers suffered punishments akin to Madoff for losing money for clients, there would still be economic booms and recessions. In fact, there could be other consequences like overly conservative business, leading to little innovation. The only valid punishment for this hypothetical money manager would be a loss of his own funds as well. It wouldn't prevent recession, but it would help prevent overly risky investing.
              Last edited by wiltondeportes; 10-01-2013, 03:25 PM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by wiltondeportes View Post
                I'm having visions of a bunch of guys in western gear on horses, the whole group dwarfed by a single elephant, trying to round up the elephant herd.
                That'd be a tall order with that level of technology . I remember going to Oklahoma a few years ago and seeing some Indians corral a huge herd of buffalo with 4-wheelers. It was quite a different picture than what I've seen in old Western movies.
                In matters of style, swim with the current. In matters of principle, stand like a rock.

                This message has been intercepted by the NSA, the only branch of government that listens.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by wiltondeportes View Post
                  Legal ramifications like life sentences are "skin in the game". Bernie Madoff got caught before he "made off" with the money, and he was penalized. I take a view closer to yours in instances like this though. Life in a maximum security prison with all play and no work is not hard enough punishment.

                  However, even if good, honest money managers suffered punishments akin to Madoff for losing money for clients, there would still be economic booms and recessions. In fact, there could be other consequences like overly conservative business, leading to little innovation. The only valid punishment for this hypothetical money manager would be a loss of his own funds as well. It wouldn't prevent recession, but it would help prevent overly risky investing.
                  That's what I'm talking, personal loss of his money, if he loses everybody else's money.

                  If US president declares war on Afghanistan and Iraq and the war lasts 12 years and he's only in office for 3 or 6 then he should have to go fight on the front lines after his time in office is done until the war finishes. It would very quickly stop leaders starting wars they can't finish and putting their country on the brink of bankruptcy.


                  Sent from my iPhone
                  A little primal gem - My Success Story
                  Weight lost in 4 months - 29kg (64 lbs)

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by dilberryhoundog View Post
                    In my belief the following is the most wrong thing with our society these days;

                    Our leaders/ governments/ CEO's don't have any "skin in the game".

                    They make decisions outside of themselves, their decisions have very little negative personal impact. Also today's elite benefit greatly from upside risk, but have almost inoculated them selfs from downside risk, deferring the negative consequences to the everyday man.

                    A companies "Limited liability" is a massive social problem.

                    Basically all the big players get immensely personally rewarded for good performance but don't get personally punished for poor performance. This exists nowhere else on the planet and hasn't existed in history.

                    When a Middle Ages king decided to go to war against neighbours, if it was a poor decision, he usually died for that decision on the battle field. He had "skin in the game".

                    If a high flying money manager suffered personal losses on par with the losses he sometimes makes for his clients, there would be no financial system crashes. He has no "skin in the game"


                    Sent from my iPhone
                    Google "Democracy: The God That Failed" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe. He analyzes a lot of what you talk about.
                    In matters of style, swim with the current. In matters of principle, stand like a rock.

                    This message has been intercepted by the NSA, the only branch of government that listens.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Jefferson1775 View Post
                      Those are all examples of the tragedy of the commons. If no one owns the animals or trees, no one has an incentive to take care of them.
                      And if someone does own those trees and animals, they are liable to cash it all in for a big payout while every generation after him will suffer. The land (meaning land, water, oil, animals, soil, rare earth metals, etc) is, ultimately, a right of the collective because it must be preserved for infinite generations to come. This is in direct opposition to Weitko, which wants to use as many resources as quickly as possible for personal gain. I agree, land rights are extremely important for individuals to attain, but they must never be absolute; there should be a thin shell of the government behind it.

                      In America, we call this eminent domain. This is the system we have today. There may be some issues with specific regulations, like "can't build x,y,z on your property when x,y, or z are good and valid things to have", but these are fixable issues within our system, which is the best there has ever been in my opinion.

                      Weitko is also related to a totally free market and pure capitalism. You allow these kinds of people to run rampant.

                      "Weitko" is not a moral meme that we have to erase from Western thought, as the Native Americans thought. It's not a virus. It's simply one element of human nature that the Native Americans had wisely "checked" with certain local rules, while us Westerners had *not* checked this with a rule in our government, probably because of our arrogance.
                      Last edited by wiltondeportes; 10-01-2013, 03:39 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Jefferson1775 View Post
                        That sure doesn't help those elephants that keep getting slaughtered, for example.
                        You know what else didn't help those elephants? The actual profit-seeking poachers that killed them.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by wiltondeportes View Post
                          "Weitko" is not a moral meme that we have to erase from Western thought, as the Native Americans thought. It's not a virus. It's simply one element of human nature that the Native Americans had wisely "checked" with certain local rules, while us Westerners had *not* checked this with a rule in our government, probably because of our arrogance.
                          Westerners have always tried to check it too. The idea that we can create a workable society based on everyone pursuing their own self interest is a new thing.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by wiltondeportes View Post
                            And if someone does own those trees and animals, they are liable to cash it all in for a big payout while every generation after him will suffer. The land (meaning land, water, oil, animals, soil, rare earth metals, etc) is, ultimately, a right of the collective because it must be preserved for infinite generations to come. This is in direct opposition to Weitko, which wants to use as many resources as quickly as possible for personal gain. I agree, land rights are extremely important for individuals to attain, but they must never be absolute; there should be a thin shell of the government behind it
                            You know, you're right. I've never thought about it that way. I should go home and tell my family that we need to go in the woods and shoot every last one of our good bucks, then cut down all of our trees and sell them for lumber, then offer to store the county's trash in our ponds for money, and then sell our entire herd of cattle for meat. I bet we'd make quite a bit of money. Oh wait, that'd be really stupid, because the property would lose almost all of its value, and in the long run, it's makes a lot more fiscal sense to maintain what we have. Sure, there are plenty of idiots out there that will destroy their property's long term value for a little bit of short term wealth, but they certainly aren't in the majority.


                            Originally posted by wiltondeportes View Post
                            In America, we call this eminent domain. This is the system we have today. There may be some issues with specific regulations, like "can't build x,y,z on your property when x,y, or z are good and valid things to have", but these are fixable issues within our system, which is the best there has ever been in my opinion.
                            Alright, I must thank you for writing this. I've watched some Comedy Central and seen a few amusing things on Facebook today, but this is the funniest . You talk about eminent domain like it's some way for Our Dear Leaders to protect the land. It's mostly about city council members stealing land from poor people so that their developer buddies can build a new shopping mall. Malls are fine with me, but they need to obtain that land honestly.

                            You probably are pretty good with the physical sciences (F=ma and everything derived from it), but your understanding of the social sciences is lacking. I can tell you're a statist, so type "Keynesian economics" in on Amazon and explore what's out there.
                            In matters of style, swim with the current. In matters of principle, stand like a rock.

                            This message has been intercepted by the NSA, the only branch of government that listens.

                            Comment


                            • Oh boy, don't encourage him!

                              Sent from my LG-VM696 using Marks Daily Apple Forum mobile app

                              My journal

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Jefferson1775 View Post
                                Google "Democracy: The God That Failed" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe. He analyzes a lot of what you talk about.
                                +1,000. I was just going to mention that too.

                                I also agree with presidents fighting in their own wars. Congressmen too. If you vote for the war, you're going to the front lines.

                                Sent from my LG-VM696 using Marks Daily Apple Forum mobile app

                                My journal

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X