They should've listed what it must do, and stipulated that it can do nothing else. That would have been much more restrictive to the growth of the federal government. Instead we have a list of what the government must do, some things it can do, and some things it can't do, and the rest is subject to interpretation (thanks to the elastic clause). It's a recipe for allowing the majority to coerce and control the minority, which is probably not what the founding fathers intended.
Well that, but also your social intelligence. Remember, your ability to interact with others is a vital life skill, and it is not really addressed by IQ tests (neither are those other things).
"these indicators are actually the best indicators we have."
True, but that doesn't mean that they're an adequate measure of someone's ability to succeed. Using IQ tests to place people in jobs (or to determine how accessible education, which may allow them to take on a job, should be to them) is completely unacceptable because of the inadequacies of the tests to truly gauge what someone is capable of.
"IQ correlates highly with school performance but the correlations decrease the closer one gets to real-world outcomes, like with job performance, and still lower with income. It explains less than one sixth of the income variance [9]. Even for school grades, other factors explain most the variance."
The thing that I think is really funny about IQ tests is that they correlate well to academic ability, but seem to be unrelated to the real-world success of the individuals tested. If they don't relate to ones actual ability to be a productive member of society, it's hard to argue that they're meaningful.
Sellers typically try to set their sale price so they make the maximum total profits. The total profit determines whether or not they produce the product in the first place, and that is where the production cost enters the equation. The reason niche software titles cost more is because there are a few people who really need the software, and they need to be willing to pay enough to cover the cost of developing the software before the software will be written.
The truth is that the music sellers should be allowed to set the price, and they'll set it so they make as much money as possible.
These manufactures don't care about the end price of the laptop. The MIT lab designed the project with the intent that manufacturers could profitably build them for a reasonable price. The manufacturers aren't saying that it won't happen because they won't make enough money, but because they don't have enough time.
My personal experience is that academics do not fully appreciate the amount of time and work required to make something that works in theory work in the real world. When products are brought to market, it is usually the result of years of planning, design, and development (even in the computer industry). Most academics seem to think that once the concept is developed, most of the work is done, but in reality that is a very small part of the overall process. While the MIT lab has been drumming up political support for the project, they've left most of the real work to the manufacturers they plan to contract to (they've really only designed the concept). Since it is still the bidding stage for all of this work, we are really only at the very beginning of the process. The MIT lab has given an unrealistic estimate of the amount of time the project will take. Manufacturers don't care who they work for, only that they get paid.
So we were better off when we lived to thirty and ran around half-naked killing antelope with our bear hands? I hope you were being sarcastic, but I couldn't detect any sarcasm.
"As noted by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Copyright Office theoretically grants exemptions, but in reality discourages anyone from asking."
That makes it sound so sinister. Isn't this the real purpose of any bureaucracy? To limit peoples access to things to which they are theoretically entitled, without having to prevent their access entirely. The same thing could be said about insurance policies, or any kind of social services offered by the US government, or retailer return policies.
"How can *any* single entity file that many lawsuits and not be considered as abusing the system?"
Maybe copyright infringement is a widespread problem? Are you seriously claiming that 14 thousand people couldn't possible all be guilty of distributing copyrighted music online? Most of the people on this forum have probably done it (I have, and I feel horribly about having done it). It's likely that people settled out of court because they knew that they were liable, and would probably be found liable in civil court. I mean, they found these people by tracking IP's, it's not likely that they were wrong. This lady is probably just as guilty of copyright infringement as everyone else they've sued. She probably just thinks she can get away with it because she's a single mother of five. It's disgusting.
So he's complaining about how extroverts make bad presidents, and then his example of an introverted president is Jimmy Carter? This does not bode well for the argument that introverts would do better.
Wal-mart uses the same suppliers as everyone else, so their suppliers are not the reason they are successful. Their efficient management and emphasis on low prices is the reason they are successful.
Saying that 40 million US citizens do not have access to medical care is wrong. 40 million don't have insurance, it's true, but they could apply for medicare if they wanted to (it's not hard, and costs nothing). Also, any hospital that receives public funds(most of them) is required by law to treat an immediate medical need, regardless of the patients insurance status. In Canada, shortages in supply are met by lines and waiting lists, in the US they are addressed by giving it to the people who can afford it first. You can't possibly claim that shortages do not occur in Canada, as they have the same supply per capita as the US. It's unfair either way. Socialized heathy care provides no incentive for increasing supply of health care.
"band of foxes as to the best security measures of the chickenhouse"
The same could be said for allowing the poor to decide how the wealth of the rich is spent, yet that is what you advocate. The best system results when both parties are given a say in the process.
Being wealthy is not immoral. Therefore, it is not fair to take money from them just because they are are rich. You say that you cannot be rich without being immoral, but it is simply not true. Furthermore, immoral behavior is not restricted to the wealthy. No matter how you look at it, there is not a morally justified reason to take money from the rich simply because they are rich.
"Really? You mean personally accumulating a portion of world's resources equal to that of 100 million people, or so, can be achieved "fairly" from the point of view of any sane society, without encroaching on other people's freedoms?"
"Only because they don't play by the rules, such as using slave labour overseas."
They use the lowest-cost provider just like everyone else, yet they are the most successful. What's the difference? More efficient practices.
"Your standards are frighteningly low."
Lets see, acceptable durability, low price. No, I don't think there's anything missing.
""cool image" is nowhere to be found in Adam Smith's opus magnum on the workings of capitalism"
That's not really surprising since branding was much more difficult before mass media. Given how long ago Adam Smith lived, you wouldn't really expect him to talk about branding. He did talk about quality though, which does, in my opinion, cover branding.
"such "judgments" by these "customers" are indistinguishable, according to the tenets of capitalism, from a scam."
The seller does not make untrue claims about the product in order to sell it at a higher price, so it's not a scam. This is because the claim that all the cool, popular kids use these items is true. You can say that they're exploiting peer pressure if you want to, but they're really just filling a market need that already exists.
"Nearly all billionaires are like that. Otherwise they would not be billionaires"
That does not bode well for your assertion that wealthy people hurt the economy, since they don't waste resources.
"Their size grants them new possibilities, such as manipulation of regional and national governments"
If the existing rules and regulations are stifling the economy, then input from big businesses can be beneficial.
"use of adverse political conditions in one country to use slave labour to manufacture products for sale in another"
Of course, such input can also be negative. Unfortunately, big businesses and wealthy individuals are not the only ones who have an adverse effect on politics. The only solution to political inefficiencies is better voter awareness. Eliminating the voice big business is not a solution (or really even a possibility).
"removal of supplies accessible to their competitors, creation of various barriers to entry for them"
This is an easily detectible offense, and can be easily addressed through antitrust laws.
"mass propaganda (frequently via their own TV networks), etc and so on.""
I have never noticed this to be a large problem.
"they make it work for 1/3 less (and often much less then that)."
The less accessible health care is, the higher the price goes as people attempt to gain access. The problem with the assumption that simply because it is "cheaper" in a socialized system means that it is more accessible, is that the cost is controlled in a socialized system, and can not be used as an indicator of accessibility. The fact is that the number of doctors and nurses per capita is the same in the US as it is in Canada. This means that the supply is the same, and so health care can not possibly be more accessible in Canada than in the US. In the US there is an incentive to produce more doctors and nurses (but this can't happen because of existing artificial barriers to entry), in Canada there is no such incentive (but it doesn't matter because the same barriers to entry exist there, which means they couldn't produce more if they wanted to).
"that the "free market" solution does not cover all of the people who need it"
Neither does the not "free market" because there isn't enough supply to meet all the need. It's just that in a free market, the richer people get it first. This is no more or less fair than choosing who gets care at random. The only fair solution is increasing supply until all "need" is met.
"it applies to a wholly different situation"
No, it's an example of how ineffective and unfair a broad solution is when a more targeted solution is possible. The situations are the same with regard to the traits involved.
"Economic freedom is like other freedoms. There are limits to it."
Emotional damages usually amount to a few million dollars, certainly more than they're worth, but nothing compared to the punitive damages usually awarded alongside. The thing I don't get about punitive damages is that they are paid to the "victim". If they are supposed to punish the defendant for wrongdoing, why are they paid to the plaintiff? It'd probably be better to burn the money than to give it to the kind of worthless assholes who are usually involved in cases like this.
I've never been dissatisfied with a purchase I've made at wal-mart. Their return policy gives them an incentive to sell items of an acceptable quality, which I have found to be the case. I don't know why you have a problem with their labour practices, when I worked for them I didn't have any complaints. There was no union, but I was able to talk to my manager about my workload and hours, I didn't feel that they demanded anything unreasonable out of me. Have you had a bad experience with wal-mart that has soured your view of them? All of my interactions with wal-mart have been positive.
"They save in short term, only to be out of job as a result."
No, wal-mart is successful because it is the most efficient retailer. The success of wal-mart means that fewer resources are needed to get products from where they are produced to where they are used. This will make life easier for everyone, since it will reduce the cost of living, and allow labour to be used for other, more productive purposes.
"You just don't get it. Branding is a form of psychological warfare, peer pressure and the very thing I was repeatedly pointing out as a con-job."
I don't think so. People are naturally inclined to seek out ways to fit in to a group. Peer pressure has always been around, an I have no reason to believe that capitalism perpetuates it. Brand names are a value added feature. It costs money to develop and promote a brand image, and people are willing to pay extra for the social recognition they gain from it. You may not place any value in this kind of nonsense, but it is not your place to pass judgment on others who do. Saying that their value judgment is invalid is arrogant and meaningless. If you have a problem with others making these kind of judgments, you should try to explain your point of view to them.
"They don't/didn't even live extravagantly."
This means that they aren't/weren't driven by personal greed (since they didn't really gain anything as a result of their economic success). Therefore greed is not a pre-condition of economic success in a capitalist economy.
"A decreasing number of ever larger conglomerates which compete in courts, by trying to buy up the competitors or suppliers and by lobbying governments makes the market "more efficient"."
Well, a larger company is able to take advantage of economies of scale, and is in a better position to promote its interests in a social/political environment. But a larger company is also more expensive to manage, which makes it less efficient. The balance of these factors makes a size that is of optimal efficiency.
"You gotta be kidding."
No, anticompetitive behavior leads to a less-efficient economy, which is bad. Government regulation is necessary to prevent it.
"So the government is to be in business of regulating the contents of private insurance brochures and do nothing about the actual cost of insurance running $700 a month per person?"
If that's what health care costs, there's really nothing the government can do about it. Hopefully, by regulating the terms of health care insurance, they can promote competition and promote more efficient solutions. Right now, insurance companies compete by trying to find the terms that result in people being willing to pay the most for the same amount of health care (they prevent shortages of health care by reducing demand) but if there were standardized terms, people would look for the lowest cost provider with an equivalent set of terms, thereby putting the emphasis on efficiency (they would prevent shortages by increasing supply). Simply spreading the high cost out over the entire population does not increase the supply of health care itself, and therefore does not increase accessibility. Removing barriers to entry and providing positive incectives for efficient operation will increase the supply of health care, and thereby increase accessibility. Clearly, a free-market solution is better because it provides incentives for increased effic
The fact that people still spend hours a day listening to lecturers drone on about esoteric nonsense is a further indication of this. How is sitting in a cramped lecture hall and listening to a professor talk to 150 students any better than just reading the same material online at your own pace and with your own schedule? Why would they even imagine that students surfing the internet is the problem. The problem is that the classes themselves are boring and meaningless.
"Actually such judgement is not only possible, but rather obvious. All one has to do is to compare virtually identical transactions to each other."
But just because you think the items have the same value, doesn't mean that the people involved do. For example, people will be willing to pay more for a brand name product than a non-brand name one. You might say that they've been cheated because they should've bought the cheaper item. But the name-brand item is much more valuable to an image-consious person, because it allows them to "buy" higher social standing along with the product. In other cases people may be willing to pay more for an item which they find to be aesthetically appealing, or may pay more for a product from a manufacturer they buy from regularly because they trust them more. There are other examples, but they all have in common the idea that you can't judge value the same way someone else will, and so fail to consider something that is important to the buyer.
"Yes, the information is available, but it is being purposefully obfuscated and drowned in a vast river of screeming, yelling informational junk. Even experts have hard times locating valid comparative information, and they spend majority of their work time doing so."
I don't really have any difficulty making purchasing decisions. I have a number of retailers and manufacturers that I've grown to trust because of past experience. I trust wal-mart as a retailer because their liberal return policy guarantees that I will be satisfied with my purchase (they don't even require a receipt for a return, but you can't return software), and comparison price shopping has shown that their prices are usually lower than other stores. By purchasing from wal-mart, I am offloading the work of determining product quality, and finding a reasonable price to them (since I don't have to worry about getting stuck with a defective or overpriced item).
"Of course. You fell the victim of the same shtick which I was pointing out before (and which you now deny exists) that is the manipulation of the marketplace via subtle mis-representation of the complex product (a school curriculum in this case). You should note that many of the graduates of that school probably still do not know any better. And yet they were hoodwinked (because what they got is below the acceptable standard). Welcome to the club."
No I didn't because I realized (rather early on) that I was getting screwed. The problem is that these government operations are partially immune from racketeering and antitrust laws, so I don't really have a good recourse. I believe that most people realize at some point they got screwed, for starters, the 46% of students who drop out probably do so because they realize what a bunch of bullshit it is. If people feel that they got a good deal out of college, then it's fine because it means that they had a positive experience, and got a good job because of their degree. I feel like I was coerced into going to college, and waisted 5 years of my life doing nothing but running up debts and being condescended by stuffy, worthless academics. The government funded system needs to stop, it's horrible.
"in real-life you can observe the following with 100% accuracy: vast fortunes are always obtained by gaming the system."
100% accuracy is easy to disprove: Steve Jobs, and Sam Walton for example, definitely earned what they earned fairly, without gaming the system. They don't/didn't even live extravagantly. I maintain that most people with large fortunes obtained them legitimately (I don't thin that inheritance is illegitimate, since I don't find it to be unfair). Most people who obtain their fortunes illegitimately (in the US) eventually face significant legal troubles as a result (this is one of the advantages of having such lax civil liability laws, it's easy to sue).
"In real-life however, one can set up nearly insurmountable barriers to entry. Like, say, buy up all the mines of a particular rare mineral or create inco
"the victims of such coercion . . . are frequently . . . unaware of it."
The problem is that the fairness of an exchange is evident solely through perceived fairness on the part of the parties involved. If they don't think there's a problem, it's hard to say that one really exists, because an outside agent will not judge value the same way the parties involved in the exchange do. If you are in possession of more information about the exchange than the involved parties, you could reasonably say that the exchange might have been unfair, but it is unlikely that you really do possess more information, and even if you do, it doesn't necessarily follow that any of the involved parties would feel the exchange unfair if they had such information. The best way to help this problem is by effective and efficient distribution of information to everyone involved. Of course, in most of the industrialized world such information is freely and easily available to people who are interested in having such information. As a result, it is reasonable to expect citizens to make informed decisions about personal spending. It would be wrong not to hold people accountable for their own ability to make good decisions. Such a policy would take power and freedom from the population at large and give it to the government. Since this is true, it is reasonable to say that government intervention should take place only if someone complains that they've been taken advantage of.
The real solution to this problem is to raise new members of society to think critically and question authority. Unfortunately, critical thinking and self-reliance are stomped out during the early education process by teachers who think children will be better off if they never strive for anything greater. People who question authority are usually punished for their will to earn a better situation for themselves. This is a sorry state of affairs, but the education system as it currently stands is at fault.
"The dreaded "redistribution" I advocate is from those who can be easily demonstrated as individually gaming the system to broad, society-wide support structures."
This is not an accurate description of the tax-system as it currently exists. Taxes are levied across the board, to all citizens. I can't see an easy way to determine who is gaming the system. Simply taking money from rich people would be like giving B's to people who earned A's on a test, assuming that they have cheated. First of all, people who cheat should get F's, and secondly you don't have to cheat to get an A.
"That is why you "redistribute" the money into most basic things like ensuring that children of even the most vile and lazy individuals do not go hungry and have access to basic education where they can have a chance to become "contributors" to the society, which otherwise would be impossible as they would be dead in a horrible, tortuous way. "
This is another example of a negative externality. Helping children to succeed benefits society in the long run, but individuals who do it are at a disadvantage to those who don't. Fortunately, in the case of most children there are people who are willing to pay for their upbringing regardless of the cost. Unfortunately, I couldn't use the word "all" in the place of the word "most" in the previous sentence. The problem could be reduced by providing incentives to people who use birth control, thereby reducing the number of unwanted children. I don't want to provide direct assistance the the parents of children who can't afford to care for them, since it will encourage them to have more children. Before you say anything, I grew up in a poor section of town, and I knew several people who actually made a living that way. It's really a despicable situation because the parents essentially hold the children hostage and demand that we give them money "or the kid gets it". I really can't advocate giving money to someone who would use their own children that way, it's practically the definition of anti-social b
Any resource is scarce in the face of unlimited demand.
The problem with China is that they control the value of their currency to keep exports high. The goal of those particular negotiations is to convince China to stop doing this.
"The only notable exceptions are when people feel that they have been coerced into an making an exchange."
What is it about this statement that you don't understand. I feel that the role of government is to prevent cohesion and market manipulation, and I have made my opinion on this matter quite clear. Don't keep citing examples of this because I already understand that it is a problem.
"All legal of course."
Racketeering is illegal. I don't know why you think this is not the case. The reason it often goes unpunished is because people are unwilling to admit when they've been had. Clearly, the solution to this problem is more aggressive government prosecution.
"You gotta be kidding. If, for example, a company achieves a 100% monopoly by purchasing 100% of a given natural resource world-wide, that is a "difficulty in accounting"?!"
Yes it is. When one company exercises complete control of a resource, it makes the real value of that resource difficult to determine. Again, government regulation in the form of antitrust law is the answer, and I have already made my opinion on this matter quire clear.
"Excessive accumulation of wealth not accompanied with any measurable gain to the society is #1 on mine."
Yes, the problem is that simply because someone has accumulated a lot of wealth does not mean that it has been obtained illegitimately. Not only that, but simply because someone is poor, it does not mean that the wealth they do have was obtained through legitimate means. This is why I think direct wealth redistribution distribution is bullshit.
Scarce means limited. It would be wrong to say than any resource is not limited.
"Riiight. And all these routers have little people in them working their asses off to quickly duplicate the packets. Perhaps I should think about feeding the little fairy in my HD who nicely copies all those files for me."
When your router wears out (and it will) you will need to go out and buy a new one. That new router will be built by robots in a factory. Those robots will be maintained by a person. Someone has to pay the people that maintain those robots, or the whole system will collapse. Anything that you consider an unlimited resource will come back to labour and natural resources in the end, as such those resources are in reality limited and therefor scarce.
"That in the past 20 years, the IMF destroyed the economy of those countries, precisely by opening them to international competition, which means for instance that countries which were able to feed themselves no longer can because we're literally forcing them to buy the surplus of our agriculture. And as I said in an other post, the US has is very protectionist toward importations, thus has restrictive trade laws."
The US really is not protectionist against imports, I'm not sure why you are under this impression. If we were, do you think we'd be running a $200 billion trade deficit with China? The main problem is our agricultural subsidies (and most countries in Europe are guilty of this as well). In the '80s when a lot of the modern free trade agreements were made, politicians suffered from the idea that agricultural subsidies were necessary to maintain a stable economy. As a result, they were unwilling to do away with them as a condition of free trade. In this case, the solution is freer trade (an end to US and European agricultural subsides).
"BTW, the US are one of the most protectionist governments" Yikes, compared to what? I know we're pretty bad about agriculture, but everything else is pretty much okay (there's logging and steel, but we're working on those). At any rate, I don't agree with protectionist government subsidies, regardless of who is doing it.
"and an often cited reason of the lack of economical growth in the EU is because we're not protectionist enough, therefore can't compete with cheap goods produced by China (among others)." That would be one of those negative externalitys you were talking about. Protectionism will benefit one country to the detriment of the other, this is why it often leads to trade wars. The WTO was formed to prevent these kind of abuses. Globally free trade is good, which means that as long as all parties avoid protectionism, all parties will benefit.
Slashdot Mirror
They should've listed what it must do, and stipulated that it can do nothing else. That would have been much more restrictive to the growth of the federal government. Instead we have a list of what the government must do, some things it can do, and some things it can't do, and the rest is subject to interpretation (thanks to the elastic clause). It's a recipe for allowing the majority to coerce and control the minority, which is probably not what the founding fathers intended.
Well that, but also your social intelligence. Remember, your ability to interact with others is a vital life skill, and it is not really addressed by IQ tests (neither are those other things).
"these indicators are actually the best indicators we have."
True, but that doesn't mean that they're an adequate measure of someone's ability to succeed. Using IQ tests to place people in jobs (or to determine how accessible education, which may allow them to take on a job, should be to them) is completely unacceptable because of the inadequacies of the tests to truly gauge what someone is capable of.
"IQ correlates highly with school performance but the correlations decrease the closer one gets to real-world outcomes, like with job performance, and still lower with income. It explains less than one sixth of the income variance [9]. Even for school grades, other factors explain most the variance."
The thing that I think is really funny about IQ tests is that they correlate well to academic ability, but seem to be unrelated to the real-world success of the individuals tested. If they don't relate to ones actual ability to be a productive member of society, it's hard to argue that they're meaningful.
Sellers typically try to set their sale price so they make the maximum total profits. The total profit determines whether or not they produce the product in the first place, and that is where the production cost enters the equation. The reason niche software titles cost more is because there are a few people who really need the software, and they need to be willing to pay enough to cover the cost of developing the software before the software will be written.
The truth is that the music sellers should be allowed to set the price, and they'll set it so they make as much money as possible.
That's more like it.
These manufactures don't care about the end price of the laptop. The MIT lab designed the project with the intent that manufacturers could profitably build them for a reasonable price. The manufacturers aren't saying that it won't happen because they won't make enough money, but because they don't have enough time.
My personal experience is that academics do not fully appreciate the amount of time and work required to make something that works in theory work in the real world. When products are brought to market, it is usually the result of years of planning, design, and development (even in the computer industry). Most academics seem to think that once the concept is developed, most of the work is done, but in reality that is a very small part of the overall process. While the MIT lab has been drumming up political support for the project, they've left most of the real work to the manufacturers they plan to contract to (they've really only designed the concept). Since it is still the bidding stage for all of this work, we are really only at the very beginning of the process. The MIT lab has given an unrealistic estimate of the amount of time the project will take. Manufacturers don't care who they work for, only that they get paid.
"So the free market system is bad."
So we were better off when we lived to thirty and ran around half-naked killing antelope with our bear hands? I hope you were being sarcastic, but I couldn't detect any sarcasm.
"As noted by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Copyright Office theoretically grants exemptions, but in reality discourages anyone from asking."
That makes it sound so sinister. Isn't this the real purpose of any bureaucracy? To limit peoples access to things to which they are theoretically entitled, without having to prevent their access entirely. The same thing could be said about insurance policies, or any kind of social services offered by the US government, or retailer return policies.
"Copyright protection is a legislated right, not an inalienable one."
I think that falls under pursuit of happiness, or do you think it fair that people should not be able to live by making music or writing books?
"How can *any* single entity file that many lawsuits and not be considered as abusing the system?"
Maybe copyright infringement is a widespread problem? Are you seriously claiming that 14 thousand people couldn't possible all be guilty of distributing copyrighted music online? Most of the people on this forum have probably done it (I have, and I feel horribly about having done it). It's likely that people settled out of court because they knew that they were liable, and would probably be found liable in civil court. I mean, they found these people by tracking IP's, it's not likely that they were wrong. This lady is probably just as guilty of copyright infringement as everyone else they've sued. She probably just thinks she can get away with it because she's a single mother of five. It's disgusting.
So he's complaining about how extroverts make bad presidents, and then his example of an introverted president is Jimmy Carter? This does not bode well for the argument that introverts would do better.
Wal-mart uses the same suppliers as everyone else, so their suppliers are not the reason they are successful. Their efficient management and emphasis on low prices is the reason they are successful.
Saying that 40 million US citizens do not have access to medical care is wrong. 40 million don't have insurance, it's true, but they could apply for medicare if they wanted to (it's not hard, and costs nothing). Also, any hospital that receives public funds(most of them) is required by law to treat an immediate medical need, regardless of the patients insurance status. In Canada, shortages in supply are met by lines and waiting lists, in the US they are addressed by giving it to the people who can afford it first. You can't possibly claim that shortages do not occur in Canada, as they have the same supply per capita as the US. It's unfair either way. Socialized heathy care provides no incentive for increasing supply of health care.
"band of foxes as to the best security measures of the chickenhouse"
The same could be said for allowing the poor to decide how the wealth of the rich is spent, yet that is what you advocate. The best system results when both parties are given a say in the process.
Being wealthy is not immoral. Therefore, it is not fair to take money from them just because they are are rich. You say that you cannot be rich without being immoral, but it is simply not true. Furthermore, immoral behavior is not restricted to the wealthy. No matter how you look at it, there is not a morally justified reason to take money from the rich simply because they are rich.
"Really? You mean personally accumulating a portion of world's resources equal to that of 100 million people, or so, can be achieved "fairly" from the point of view of any sane society, without encroaching on other people's freedoms?"
Yes.
"Only because they don't play by the rules, such as using slave labour overseas."
They use the lowest-cost provider just like everyone else, yet they are the most successful. What's the difference? More efficient practices.
"Your standards are frighteningly low."
Lets see, acceptable durability, low price. No, I don't think there's anything missing.
""cool image" is nowhere to be found in Adam Smith's opus magnum on the workings of capitalism"
That's not really surprising since branding was much more difficult before mass media. Given how long ago Adam Smith lived, you wouldn't really expect him to talk about branding. He did talk about quality though, which does, in my opinion, cover branding.
"such "judgments" by these "customers" are indistinguishable, according to the tenets of capitalism, from a scam."
The seller does not make untrue claims about the product in order to sell it at a higher price, so it's not a scam. This is because the claim that all the cool, popular kids use these items is true. You can say that they're exploiting peer pressure if you want to, but they're really just filling a market need that already exists.
"Nearly all billionaires are like that. Otherwise they would not be billionaires"
That does not bode well for your assertion that wealthy people hurt the economy, since they don't waste resources.
"Their size grants them new possibilities, such as manipulation of regional and national governments"
If the existing rules and regulations are stifling the economy, then input from big businesses can be beneficial.
"use of adverse political conditions in one country to use slave labour to manufacture products for sale in another"
Of course, such input can also be negative. Unfortunately, big businesses and wealthy individuals are not the only ones who have an adverse effect on politics. The only solution to political inefficiencies is better voter awareness. Eliminating the voice big business is not a solution (or really even a possibility).
"removal of supplies accessible to their competitors, creation of various barriers to entry for them"
This is an easily detectible offense, and can be easily addressed through antitrust laws.
"mass propaganda (frequently via their own TV networks), etc and so on.""
I have never noticed this to be a large problem.
"they make it work for 1/3 less (and often much less then that)."
The less accessible health care is, the higher the price goes as people attempt to gain access. The problem with the assumption that simply because it is "cheaper" in a socialized system means that it is more accessible, is that the cost is controlled in a socialized system, and can not be used as an indicator of accessibility. The fact is that the number of doctors and nurses per capita is the same in the US as it is in Canada. This means that the supply is the same, and so health care can not possibly be more accessible in Canada than in the US. In the US there is an incentive to produce more doctors and nurses (but this can't happen because of existing artificial barriers to entry), in Canada there is no such incentive (but it doesn't matter because the same barriers to entry exist there, which means they couldn't produce more if they wanted to).
"that the "free market" solution does not cover all of the people who need it"
Neither does the not "free market" because there isn't enough supply to meet all the need. It's just that in a free market, the richer people get it first. This is no more or less fair than choosing who gets care at random. The only fair solution is increasing supply until all "need" is met.
"it applies to a wholly different situation"
No, it's an example of how ineffective and unfair a broad solution is when a more targeted solution is possible. The situations are the same with regard to the traits involved.
"Economic freedom is like other freedoms. There are limits to it."
Emotional damages usually amount to a few million dollars, certainly more than they're worth, but nothing compared to the punitive damages usually awarded alongside. The thing I don't get about punitive damages is that they are paid to the "victim". If they are supposed to punish the defendant for wrongdoing, why are they paid to the plaintiff? It'd probably be better to burn the money than to give it to the kind of worthless assholes who are usually involved in cases like this.
Is there another manufacturer that makes laptops clad in flat metal? Because it's pretty hard to engrave something that isn't.
I've never been dissatisfied with a purchase I've made at wal-mart. Their return policy gives them an incentive to sell items of an acceptable quality, which I have found to be the case. I don't know why you have a problem with their labour practices, when I worked for them I didn't have any complaints. There was no union, but I was able to talk to my manager about my workload and hours, I didn't feel that they demanded anything unreasonable out of me. Have you had a bad experience with wal-mart that has soured your view of them? All of my interactions with wal-mart have been positive.
"They save in short term, only to be out of job as a result."
No, wal-mart is successful because it is the most efficient retailer. The success of wal-mart means that fewer resources are needed to get products from where they are produced to where they are used. This will make life easier for everyone, since it will reduce the cost of living, and allow labour to be used for other, more productive purposes.
"You just don't get it. Branding is a form of psychological warfare, peer pressure and the very thing I was repeatedly pointing out as a con-job."
I don't think so. People are naturally inclined to seek out ways to fit in to a group. Peer pressure has always been around, an I have no reason to believe that capitalism perpetuates it. Brand names are a value added feature. It costs money to develop and promote a brand image, and people are willing to pay extra for the social recognition they gain from it. You may not place any value in this kind of nonsense, but it is not your place to pass judgment on others who do. Saying that their value judgment is invalid is arrogant and meaningless. If you have a problem with others making these kind of judgments, you should try to explain your point of view to them.
"They don't/didn't even live extravagantly."
This means that they aren't/weren't driven by personal greed (since they didn't really gain anything as a result of their economic success). Therefore greed is not a pre-condition of economic success in a capitalist economy.
"A decreasing number of ever larger conglomerates which compete in courts, by trying to buy up the competitors or suppliers and by lobbying governments makes the market "more efficient"."
Well, a larger company is able to take advantage of economies of scale, and is in a better position to promote its interests in a social/political environment. But a larger company is also more expensive to manage, which makes it less efficient. The balance of these factors makes a size that is of optimal efficiency.
"You gotta be kidding."
No, anticompetitive behavior leads to a less-efficient economy, which is bad. Government regulation is necessary to prevent it.
"So the government is to be in business of regulating the contents of private insurance brochures and do nothing about the actual cost of insurance running $700 a month per person?"
If that's what health care costs, there's really nothing the government can do about it. Hopefully, by regulating the terms of health care insurance, they can promote competition and promote more efficient solutions. Right now, insurance companies compete by trying to find the terms that result in people being willing to pay the most for the same amount of health care (they prevent shortages of health care by reducing demand) but if there were standardized terms, people would look for the lowest cost provider with an equivalent set of terms, thereby putting the emphasis on efficiency (they would prevent shortages by increasing supply). Simply spreading the high cost out over the entire population does not increase the supply of health care itself, and therefore does not increase accessibility. Removing barriers to entry and providing positive incectives for efficient operation will increase the supply of health care, and thereby increase accessibility. Clearly, a free-market solution is better because it provides incentives for increased effic
The fact that people still spend hours a day listening to lecturers drone on about esoteric nonsense is a further indication of this. How is sitting in a cramped lecture hall and listening to a professor talk to 150 students any better than just reading the same material online at your own pace and with your own schedule? Why would they even imagine that students surfing the internet is the problem. The problem is that the classes themselves are boring and meaningless.
"Actually such judgement is not only possible, but rather obvious. All one has to do is to compare virtually identical transactions to each other."
But just because you think the items have the same value, doesn't mean that the people involved do. For example, people will be willing to pay more for a brand name product than a non-brand name one. You might say that they've been cheated because they should've bought the cheaper item. But the name-brand item is much more valuable to an image-consious person, because it allows them to "buy" higher social standing along with the product. In other cases people may be willing to pay more for an item which they find to be aesthetically appealing, or may pay more for a product from a manufacturer they buy from regularly because they trust them more. There are other examples, but they all have in common the idea that you can't judge value the same way someone else will, and so fail to consider something that is important to the buyer.
"Yes, the information is available, but it is being purposefully obfuscated and drowned in a vast river of screeming, yelling informational junk. Even experts have hard times locating valid comparative information, and they spend majority of their work time doing so."
I don't really have any difficulty making purchasing decisions. I have a number of retailers and manufacturers that I've grown to trust because of past experience. I trust wal-mart as a retailer because their liberal return policy guarantees that I will be satisfied with my purchase (they don't even require a receipt for a return, but you can't return software), and comparison price shopping has shown that their prices are usually lower than other stores. By purchasing from wal-mart, I am offloading the work of determining product quality, and finding a reasonable price to them (since I don't have to worry about getting stuck with a defective or overpriced item).
"Of course. You fell the victim of the same shtick which I was pointing out before (and which you now deny exists) that is the manipulation of the marketplace via subtle mis-representation of the complex product (a school curriculum in this case). You should note that many of the graduates of that school probably still do not know any better. And yet they were hoodwinked (because what they got is below the acceptable standard). Welcome to the club."
No I didn't because I realized (rather early on) that I was getting screwed. The problem is that these government operations are partially immune from racketeering and antitrust laws, so I don't really have a good recourse. I believe that most people realize at some point they got screwed, for starters, the 46% of students who drop out probably do so because they realize what a bunch of bullshit it is. If people feel that they got a good deal out of college, then it's fine because it means that they had a positive experience, and got a good job because of their degree. I feel like I was coerced into going to college, and waisted 5 years of my life doing nothing but running up debts and being condescended by stuffy, worthless academics. The government funded system needs to stop, it's horrible.
"in real-life you can observe the following with 100% accuracy: vast fortunes are always obtained by gaming the system."
100% accuracy is easy to disprove: Steve Jobs, and Sam Walton for example, definitely earned what they earned fairly, without gaming the system. They don't/didn't even live extravagantly. I maintain that most people with large fortunes obtained them legitimately (I don't thin that inheritance is illegitimate, since I don't find it to be unfair). Most people who obtain their fortunes illegitimately (in the US) eventually face significant legal troubles as a result (this is one of the advantages of having such lax civil liability laws, it's easy to sue).
"In real-life however, one can set up nearly insurmountable barriers to entry. Like, say, buy up all the mines of a particular rare mineral or create inco
"the victims of such coercion . . . are frequently . . . unaware of it."
The problem is that the fairness of an exchange is evident solely through perceived fairness on the part of the parties involved. If they don't think there's a problem, it's hard to say that one really exists, because an outside agent will not judge value the same way the parties involved in the exchange do. If you are in possession of more information about the exchange than the involved parties, you could reasonably say that the exchange might have been unfair, but it is unlikely that you really do possess more information, and even if you do, it doesn't necessarily follow that any of the involved parties would feel the exchange unfair if they had such information. The best way to help this problem is by effective and efficient distribution of information to everyone involved. Of course, in most of the industrialized world such information is freely and easily available to people who are interested in having such information. As a result, it is reasonable to expect citizens to make informed decisions about personal spending. It would be wrong not to hold people accountable for their own ability to make good decisions. Such a policy would take power and freedom from the population at large and give it to the government. Since this is true, it is reasonable to say that government intervention should take place only if someone complains that they've been taken advantage of.
The real solution to this problem is to raise new members of society to think critically and question authority. Unfortunately, critical thinking and self-reliance are stomped out during the early education process by teachers who think children will be better off if they never strive for anything greater. People who question authority are usually punished for their will to earn a better situation for themselves. This is a sorry state of affairs, but the education system as it currently stands is at fault.
"The dreaded "redistribution" I advocate is from those who can be easily demonstrated as individually gaming the system to broad, society-wide support structures."
This is not an accurate description of the tax-system as it currently exists. Taxes are levied across the board, to all citizens. I can't see an easy way to determine who is gaming the system. Simply taking money from rich people would be like giving B's to people who earned A's on a test, assuming that they have cheated. First of all, people who cheat should get F's, and secondly you don't have to cheat to get an A.
"That is why you "redistribute" the money into most basic things like ensuring that children of even the most vile and lazy individuals do not go hungry and have access to basic education where they can have a chance to become "contributors" to the society, which otherwise would be impossible as they would be dead in a horrible, tortuous way. "
This is another example of a negative externality. Helping children to succeed benefits society in the long run, but individuals who do it are at a disadvantage to those who don't. Fortunately, in the case of most children there are people who are willing to pay for their upbringing regardless of the cost. Unfortunately, I couldn't use the word "all" in the place of the word "most" in the previous sentence. The problem could be reduced by providing incentives to people who use birth control, thereby reducing the number of unwanted children. I don't want to provide direct assistance the the parents of children who can't afford to care for them, since it will encourage them to have more children. Before you say anything, I grew up in a poor section of town, and I knew several people who actually made a living that way. It's really a despicable situation because the parents essentially hold the children hostage and demand that we give them money "or the kid gets it". I really can't advocate giving money to someone who would use their own children that way, it's practically the definition of anti-social b
Any resource is scarce in the face of unlimited demand.
The problem with China is that they control the value of their currency to keep exports high. The goal of those particular negotiations is to convince China to stop doing this.
"The only notable exceptions are when people feel that they have been coerced into an making an exchange."
What is it about this statement that you don't understand. I feel that the role of government is to prevent cohesion and market manipulation, and I have made my opinion on this matter quite clear. Don't keep citing examples of this because I already understand that it is a problem.
"All legal of course."
Racketeering is illegal. I don't know why you think this is not the case. The reason it often goes unpunished is because people are unwilling to admit when they've been had. Clearly, the solution to this problem is more aggressive government prosecution.
"You gotta be kidding. If, for example, a company achieves a 100% monopoly by purchasing 100% of a given natural resource world-wide, that is a "difficulty in accounting"?!"
Yes it is. When one company exercises complete control of a resource, it makes the real value of that resource difficult to determine. Again, government regulation in the form of antitrust law is the answer, and I have already made my opinion on this matter quire clear.
"Excessive accumulation of wealth not accompanied with any measurable gain to the society is #1 on mine."
Yes, the problem is that simply because someone has accumulated a lot of wealth does not mean that it has been obtained illegitimately. Not only that, but simply because someone is poor, it does not mean that the wealth they do have was obtained through legitimate means. This is why I think direct wealth redistribution distribution is bullshit.
Scarce means limited. It would be wrong to say than any resource is not limited.
"Riiight. And all these routers have little people in them working their asses off to quickly duplicate the packets. Perhaps I should think about feeding the little fairy in my HD who nicely copies all those files for me."
When your router wears out (and it will) you will need to go out and buy a new one. That new router will be built by robots in a factory. Those robots will be maintained by a person. Someone has to pay the people that maintain those robots, or the whole system will collapse. Anything that you consider an unlimited resource will come back to labour and natural resources in the end, as such those resources are in reality limited and therefor scarce.
"That in the past 20 years, the IMF destroyed the economy of those countries, precisely by opening them to international competition, which means for instance that countries which were able to feed themselves no longer can because we're literally forcing them to buy the surplus of our agriculture. And as I said in an other post, the US has is very protectionist toward importations, thus has restrictive trade laws."
The US really is not protectionist against imports, I'm not sure why you are under this impression. If we were, do you think we'd be running a $200 billion trade deficit with China? The main problem is our agricultural subsidies (and most countries in Europe are guilty of this as well). In the '80s when a lot of the modern free trade agreements were made, politicians suffered from the idea that agricultural subsidies were necessary to maintain a stable economy. As a result, they were unwilling to do away with them as a condition of free trade. In this case, the solution is freer trade (an end to US and European agricultural subsides).
"BTW, the US are one of the most protectionist governments" Yikes, compared to what? I know we're pretty bad about agriculture, but everything else is pretty much okay (there's logging and steel, but we're working on those). At any rate, I don't agree with protectionist government subsidies, regardless of who is doing it.
"and an often cited reason of the lack of economical growth in the EU is because we're not protectionist enough, therefore can't compete with cheap goods produced by China (among others)." That would be one of those negative externalitys you were talking about. Protectionism will benefit one country to the detriment of the other, this is why it often leads to trade wars. The WTO was formed to prevent these kind of abuses. Globally free trade is good, which means that as long as all parties avoid protectionism, all parties will benefit.