IlikemustardPosts: 99Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 4:44 am
AdmiralPeacock wrote:You're larbouring under the delusion that it's either A> Free Market or B> Socialism. One or the other. That's simply not representative of reality.
Well sure, we can look at resources that are "in between", and only partially socialized, i.e subsidized. Like food in Egypt, which ended up low in supply and high in price, and is blamed for sparking the riots in Egypt.
http://www.voanews.com/english/news/mid ... 70879.html
"price controls or food subsidies, which are expensive and bad for the economy in the long run"
Or you can look at the partially free healthcare market in the USA, which is heavily subsidized, and doing incredibly poorly.
Or food dumping in Africa and other areas by the USA and others in the form of "foreign aid". All it does is put farmers out of jobs and wreck the economy, whilst making Africans dependent on foreign aid in the same way a fed bird becomes dependent on the person feeding it.
Or the airline industry.
AdmiralPeacock wrote:it's objectively true that a nations with social services have a higher standard of living than nations without social services
Um, can you find me a nation without any social services? No, you can only measure the amount of money spent on social services as a percentage of GDP. And even then it's not exactly a relevant statistic in relation to HDI, as obviously a nation with a high GDP per capita that spends more on social services as a percentage of GDP is going to have a higher HDI than a nation with a low GDP per capita that spends very little on social services as a percentage of GDP, regardless of the economic growth of each nation. You can compare two nations with similar GDP per capita statistics, but looking at a list of nations by GDP per capita and a list of nations by HDI shows this to be a mixed result, as the USA and Norway are almost identical in GDP per capita and HDI, despite the fact that (from the statistics that I can find) the USA spends only 14.8% of its GDP on welfare whilst Norway spends 23.9% of its GDP on welfare.
You can, however, look at a state that has transitioned from high welfare to low welfare. Somalia is an excellent example, as it went from high welfare to almost no welfare during its period of statelessness, and experienced increases in standards of living.
http://namcub.accela-labs.com/pdf/Bette ... teless.pdf
AdmiralPeacock wrote:Perhaps you should be more careful with the tenses then. "Nations like China, while having their heart in the right place and trying to socialise food so that the poorest can eat the same meal as the rich, experienced famine. " I accept that you might have meant a past tense, but you didn't even imply one.
The word experienced is past tense. Regardless this is a matter of miscommunication and isn't relevant.
AdmiralPeacock wrote:Likewise - you just strawman my arguments (i.e. arguing against communists for some stupid reason)
I am not arguing against communists (as if communism is the only political stance that advocates socialization of resources?), I am arguing in favour of total economic freedom. Which you are arguing against. Or did I misinterpret your multiple arguments in favour of state regulation and state control of the economy?
Yeah, I know you're not arguing against all freedoms. Have you considered that maybe you're misinterpreting my argument, though? I'm saying that the more free a resource becomes economically, the more growth it experiences, as well as experiencing lower prices. This doesn't mean that I think you want communism. It means I believe economic freedom should not be in some grey area between communism and absolute freedom, which you seem to want.
AdmiralPeacock wrote:Here's another questionable debate strategy - Fuck you and your pretentious ass.
Oh ho ho, that is rich. If there is anything pretentious about my comments it was simply an act of returning the favour.
I mean, do you honestly believe these remarks of yours are not pretentious?
AdmiralPeacock wrote:DUH! I swear you're a fucking moron
AdmiralPeacock wrote:You're grasping at straws now.
AdmiralPeacock wrote:You're right your logic here is no existence - good thing you said it and not me.
AdmiralPeacock wrote:expand your field of experience
AdmiralPeacock wrote:The irony is that delicious
AdmiralPeacock wrote:Heh, yeah... what is the name of this imaginary world you live in called?
AdmiralPeacock wrote:One of the few worthwhile to creep out of Ayn Rand's cake hole
AdmiralPeacock wrote:Heh, the ultimate irony here is you mini-anarchists, anarchists and like hold Individualism in such high regard; but I swear you all sound so similar as to basically be Borg.
AdmiralPeacock wrote:Or are you one of those NWO retards?
AdmiralPeacock wrote:you failed to understand my point... unsurprisingly.
AdmiralPeacock wrote:I know it stings, but take consolation with the fact that hippy fucktards that employ the argument for nature fallacy to criticize modern life are just as owned.
AdmiralPeacock wrote:Yeah yeah there's a difference... just like there's a difference between being stabbed in the liver and being stabbed in the heart.
AdmiralPeacock wrote:By "Better source" you mean a Conservative circle jerk... errr I mean Think Tank.
This old gem.
AdmiralPeacock wrote:heh, you've yet to come close to establishing things. So far you've basically said, "State bad, private good... [insert some inane crap] and because I say so".
AdmiralPeacock wrote:your arguments can be boiled down to a kind of quasi-juvenile interpretation of inherent social obligation which is evident in the language you use
AdmiralPeacock wrote:Fuck you
This one is particularly annoying, and not just because you refer to me along with my "ilk" as if we are evil fiends, but because I know your definition of my "ilk" would include everyone to the right side of the political spectrum, including conservatives.
AdmiralPeacock wrote:you or your ilk
Annnnd here is where it all started.
AdmiralPeacock wrote:Another conservative that can not look beyond their own self righteousness to present has "pinko commies" another ridiculous strawman of a generalized image of the left. Joy!
I honestly tried to be polite. Honestly. Clearly though you're a deluded hypocrite of the most monstrous kind, and far too ignorant of it.
Oh, and "fuck you" isn't an argument.
AdmiralPeacock wrote:http://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/press ... rices-poor
Well you've seemed to miss the fact that enforced intellectual property law is regulation.
The funny thing is though, the entire article goes on about "poor countries" and "rich countries" whilst rarely even naming a country. Indeed, this quote:
"studies indicate that in some countries as much as 44 per cent of certain types of medicines, such as anti-malarials, are substandard"
is exceptionally hilarious, as it refers to 'some countries' without actually naming any of them, and does not even give a source for the studies. I mean seriously?
Um, ok? This just gives a few statistics about the sales of herbal medicines, and gives no information on the statistics of counterfeit herbal medicines, the statistics of dangerous herbal medicines, or the statistics of people injured by herbal medicines. So what is the point of this?
In the paragraph about "Safety, effectiveness and quality", they even admitted they don't know much about herbal medicine.
AdmiralPeacock wrote:History of US Food Regulation - Food Toxicology - Instructor: Gregory Mà¶ller, Ph.D. - University of Idaho
Awesome. I'm not watching an hour long lecture, though.
AdmiralPeacock wrote:FDA History - Part I
Since this source doesn't list what the journalists discovered about the marketplace, or what made the meat-packing industry nauseating, I can't exactly form a counter-argument to this.
AdmiralPeacock wrote:Edwin Markham children in Bondage (1914)
Yeah, and no one is forcing those children to work. They can quit at any time. Which is the most obvious flaw in the statement "children wasting their bodies and souls".
You're ignoring the benefits though. Many children aren't as intelligent as the people on this board, and do not benefit from education. They are better off learning from a direct experience in the workforce than learning math that they will never make use of.
AdmiralPeacock wrote:Henry Demarest Lloyd
Yeah, a lot of the world lives in poverty, I know. And I blame it on states funneling wealth to the elite through carefully designed regulations.My solution is removing the state. I also believe those envious of the USA are living in poverty simply because their state was far too restrictive on the economy, while the USA enjoyed economic freedom and thus prospered. Not because the free market somehow destroyed their lives.
AdmiralPeacock wrote:FDA History - Part I
You've seemed to ignore my proposed situation of dealing with injury sustained through free trade, also known as property aggression. If you are injured from something you've bought, you can sue the distributor using a court. This will ensure businesses have incentive not to harm their customers, or destroy their property via oil mining, etc. This is also coupled with points I've already made about competition - Businesses don't want to lose customers. And I also talked about a system of 'before-the-fact' regulation that Gnug was talking about in this thread.
You can choose not to buy a product unless it has been inspected by a trusted inspection firm and has the inspection firm's watermark placed on it. This does not inhibit freedom of course, harmful substances such as alcohol and cigarettes could still be sold without the seller being at risk of being sued, they could simply have their customer sign a contract of some sort, so that the customer acknowledges they face risk of injury.
You see, my system places absolute control in the hands of the buyer. The state does not interfere in their exchange.
AdmiralPeacock wrote:Ignore these all you want.
I didn't. Except for the lecture.
AdmiralPeacock wrote:They hold together in the cartel because it is in their best interest to.
No, I already told you why they have more incentive to undercut the rest of the cartel, because it means they can steal the market.
AdmiralPeacock wrote:If that is the only way you can think of it, you're without creativity - as I said, the companies that form cartels are usually the largest of the industry (or at least the local market) and can absorb the loses need to undercut the new competition
This is not creative. This argument has been made before. I already knew about this argument. You're assuming that undercutting the new competition occurs only for a brief period. Do you think that new competition just stops appearing after the first try? New competition is going to be constantly coming, every time new competition is put out of business by the cartel it gives newer competition even more incentive to enter the market, as they will know that the cartel has been weakened due to running at a loss to undercut the previous competition. No matter how big a cartel is it cannot run at a loss indefinitely. And of course, if they're undercutting new competition the whole time, their cartel is no longer a problem, is it?
AdmiralPeacock wrote:Example, you have two big grocery stores in a shopping centre
How much do you want to bet that your two big grocery stores are given subsidies and economic protection from the government, just like the airlines? Of course I don't actually know whether they are, I don't even know what your local grocery stores are. But I feel confident enough to bet on it.
AdmiralPeacock wrote:So? They compete against each other - there is still a market on an international scale.
So? So? Did you ignore everything I just said? Yeah, they compete against each other on an international market. Only the number of competitors is tremendously reduced due to regulations and economic protection, and you completely ignored my statement about flight route rights. Yeah, they are competing, but only if the states they fly between let them compete! Even if I was a multi-billionaire, I could not set up an airline business and enter the market in an attempt to undercut the existing airlines and steal their profits, because I likely would not be allowed to. I would simply not be given rights to fly along flight routes. Did you read that source I gave on Air France? EasyJet wanted to come in and compete, they wanted to try and offer the french a better service, but the french government did not allow EasyJet to! It's as simple as that!
So, your criticism is not a criticism of the free market at all, which is why it is irrelevant. Can you demonstrate to me why the airline industry is indeed a free market? Can you demonstrate why it is as competitive as, say, the software industry (which is one of the more free areas of the market)?
AdmiralPeacock wrote:Fuck you again
|Thu Feb 17, 2011 11:04 am||
BrainBlowPosts: 370Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 1:16 pmLocation: Norway Gender: Male
Christ, I'd have alredy closed this, were I a mod.
|Thu Feb 17, 2011 12:08 pm||
IlikemustardPosts: 99Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 4:44 am
Gnug215 wrote:No, but it does so most of the time, and it is shaped by public opinion most of the time - also simply because the state, which you keep referring to as some kind of single-minded autonomous blob, consits of people. So no, a "state" won't try to get away with as much as it can without inciting a revolution; people in a given government might.
Yes, a state will sway to the desires of the public in many cases. But as I said it does not have to, and often doesn't, as the only thing keeping it in check is the fear of revolution.
A state may consist of people, but what is the percentage of politicians in comparison to the entire public that lives within the state? Politicians are the only ones in control, they can dictate law and how social services such as police are to operate. And it is very easy to bribe a politician, indeed a senator was involved in the creation of the federal reserve in order to make himself rich from the bribes of the bankers that were also involved. This is outlined in the book The Creature from Jekyll Island and in the recorded lecture, as well as numerous other sources.
Gnug215 wrote:Private business relies first and foremost on profit, everything else is secondary. Private business can "buy" reputation with advertising
Ok, I already covered this in this thread:
I will quote the relevant section for you.
Ilikemustard wrote:There are multiple things wrong with this argument.
Edit: I realised after re-reading this that I misread "advertisement" and instead read "media" for some reason. But the point still stands that buying a lot of advertisement will not cover up an issue that can not escape the various forms of media, including the internet.
Gnug215 wrote:and it can buy up its competitors
I already covered this in another thread. I will quote it for you.
Ilikemustard wrote:First, monopolies don't form in a free market. A good example I have read of why they don't is that as they get bigger, the cost of buying out the market increases. If companyA's competitors see companyA trying to become a monopoly, they know they can charge much higher prices when companyA tries to buy them out. If companyA owns 95% of the market, and you are one of the last few competitors, you know you can charge incredibly high prices for companyA to buy you, as there aren't many other companies you are competing with in stock price.
What I failed to cover was the fact that as a company buys out the market, it is accumulating debt on account of the incredibly high cost of buying out the market. This means it has to increase its prices in order to make up for this debt, making them easier to compete with for new competitors.
Gnug215 wrote:. It has incentive to make money off products, which should be as cheap as they can possibly get away with
Not really... Why do you think people would rather eat at a 5 star restaurant instead of McDonalds?
Gnug215 wrote:Deliberately? I doubt it. It's certain, however, that they have deliberately cut costs as much as they good, and in the process often made dangerous products
Ok, yes, my demonstration of competition as a form of regulation does have flaws. Unfortunately, I forgot to make light of an argument I had already made in another thread, which addresses your problem of 'before-the-fact' regulation. To clarify my position more thoroughly, I am not against regulation in the sense of inspecting a product to make sure it is safe, I am against state regulation.
I will quote the argument for you.
Ilikemustard wrote:Here's how it would work in an intelligent society: The meat sellers would pay a private firm to inspect their product, and then if it passes their inspection it would be stamped with the third party firm's seal, or watermark. This would let consumers know that the product is safe for consumption. If people choose to buy products that don't have a watermark from an inspection firm, it is their fault if they contract some horrible disease. I know what you're thinking, what's stopping the meat sellers from paying off the inspection firm to put their watermark on their meat without inspection?
As I said in my previous post to AdmiralPeacock, this gives the consumer absolute control over their product, as they have a say in every aspect of its purchase.
Gnug215 wrote:Sure, I generalized, and perhaps it's not fair to lump a whole business together and calling it dishonest
I will answer your question more seriously. No, I don't believe the level of dishonest businesses will increase, due to the point I've already made about competition keeping businesses in check. Though if a business advertises their product dishonestly, it can be dealt with by courts, as it is a breach of trade due to the fact that the customer is not receiving the item that they intended to pay for. This would also be how fraud it dealt with.
Gnug215 wrote:Yes, of course there are corrupt politicians and state officials. Does that make the entire system rotten?
Well, yes. I mean I know that not all politicians are corrupt, and that there are legitimate ones that want to help people, but the fact that any politician can simply accept a bribe and change the lives of millions of people they do not know for the worse makes the entire system corrupt, in my opinion.
Gnug215 wrote:Yes, I know that alcohol is harmful, and I don't suggest we ban it, nor sugar. But the state has a vested interest in fixing the problem in a way that private business never could.
Sorry, I should have made this point in my original response to this question.
The free market does handle it. You have seen the documentary-film Supersize Me, no? That probably rose more awareness about McDonalds than any state program ever did.
Added to this is the fact that competitors will likely help fund projects such as this.
Gnug215 wrote:What I mean is... the state doesn't entirely and intentionally quash private enterprise, even when it's harmful. And in a society where private enterprise is so free that entities like Coca Cola and McDonalds are allowed to exist, one would also assume that such freedom would produce a private solution to the problem, right? And yet this isn't the case
How do you know Coca-Cola and McDonalds don't bribe politicians in order to receive protection in the form of regulatory barriers? I'm just speculating here though, I haven't actually looked into this.
Gnug215 wrote:Anyway, I think your trust in private business is unrealistic, just as I'm sure you feel my trust in the state (which is not as high as I'm letting on here, of course - that is only a byproduct of my position) is unrealistic - and vice versa with distrust towards the two entities.
Fair enough. I only hope I've planted the seeds for future change in your mind, and opened you up to the possibilities.
BrainBlow wrote:Christ, I'd have alredy closed this, were I a mod.
|Thu Feb 17, 2011 12:17 pm||
AdmiralPeacockPosts: 453Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 10:31 pmLocation: Australia Gender: Time Lord
Yeah, I'm not really interested anymore - hell I totally forgot I was being an ass to Ilikemustard (blame it on a lapse in memory not hypocrisy).
I would suggest you look at those journalists again - they were written before federal regulation.
"Attention all competitors, this is your ONE minute warning. I repeat ONE minute until race commencement.
Members of the public you now have ONE minute to reach minimum safe distance. "
|Thu Feb 17, 2011 1:23 pm||
RichardMNixonPosts: 1047Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2009 8:45 pmLocation: USA Gender: Pinecone
Ilikemustard wrote:No, I mean the Road to Nowhere which was built after the bridge's declined proposal.
Fine, you're still hiding from my point. One useless road doesn't even compare in waste to basically every major road in America having one or two more built right next to it by competing road companies. It's an awful, awful idea. Not as awful as private courts or private police, but still awful.
Honestly though, if you think ensuring the quality of our food, water, and pharmaceuticals isn't a valuable government service, you and I aren't on close enough ground to have a discussion.
You two are conflating a state, a federated unit of government in the United States; with State, a generic term for a government.
I still don't see what that has to do with public vs. private enterprise.
"When I come to my own beliefs, I find myself quite unable to discern any purpose in the universe, and still more unable to wish to discern one." ~ Bertrand Russell
"If we do not succeed, we run the risk of failure." ~ Dan Quayle
|Thu Feb 17, 2011 2:47 pm||
AndiferousPosts: 2727Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 7:00 amLocation: Laputa Gender: Time Lord
Closing for intermission.
"As there seemed no measure between what Watt could understand, and what he could not, so there seemed none between what he deemed certain, and what he deemed doubtful."
~ Samuel Beckett, Watt
|Fri Feb 18, 2011 6:22 am||