or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Understanding economics
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Understanding economics

post #1 of 203
Thread Starter 

Couldn't find the best thread to post this in, so I figured it was worth starting one on the general topic of understanding economics where we can discuss all important concepts of economics and how the failure to properly understand it will lead to bad policy (such as ObamaCare).

 

But here's a start:

 

 

Capitalism actually leads to the conservation of resources. Government leads to the waste of resources.

 

"Doing More With Less"

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #2 of 203
Thread Starter 

"What is Economics?"

 

 

Quote:
Since we must all be economists in one way or another, we all face the problem of how to become better economists in our daily work, in our family life, and as good citizens of our nation and of the world. The top educational problem of today is how to provide people with a better understanding of economics. All of our fundamental political problems, about which we have so many disagreements, are basically economic problems. Our prime problem is how to solve these economic problems. The best answers can be found only by resorting to the study of sound economic principles.
 
Many people think that economics is a matter of opinions. Economics is not a study of opinions. Economics is a science, and as a science it deals with eternal laws — laws that men are not able to change — laws that remain constant. If we want to improve our own satisfactions in life, we must improve our ability to know and use these laws of economics so as to attain more of the things we want. So, if the civilized world is to survive, people must learn more about this science of human action.

 

 

 

Quote:
The main objective of economics is to substitute consistently correct ideas and actions for the contradictory ideas and actions inherent in popular fallacies. Most people accept many of the popular fallacies that have come down over the years.

 

 

 

Quote:
Our job, and my job in particular, is to show that the science of economics, that is, the free market, rather than political intervention or socialism, will help all of us achieve more of the things that we want in life. So the better we understand the laws of the free market, and the better our fellow men understand them, the more successful we shall all be in attaining more of those things that each of us wants most in life.
 
However good our intentions may be, they can never make unsuitable means any more suitable for attaining desired ends. The world is full of people with good intentions. It is not only the people with bad intentions that we have to worry about. There are a few of them, to be sure, seeking power, seeking things which do not belong to them. Our great problem is the many people who have the best of intentions but who have been taken in by some popular fallacies.

 

 

 

Quote:
So, good intentions are not enough, whether we are going to church, helping a neighbor, engaging in business, or even helping at home. The little child, trying to help her mother in the kitchen, puts her hand on a hot stove, and is burned. She is hurt just as badly no matter how good her intentions were. And so it is in life. It is not good intentions that count. It is reality. It is the fact that only correctly selected actions produce the results that you seek. What matters is not whether a doctrine is new, but whether it is sound.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #3 of 203

Funny that you bold "it's only reality that counts".  How deliciously ironic.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #4 of 203

So the only sound criticism of his point is which words he bolded. Sounds typical.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #5 of 203
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Funny that you bold "it's only reality that counts".  How deliciously ironic.

 

Yes, it would be if you had posted the link.

 

But what is particularly interesting is how the policies that come from the good intentions of people like you have been so destructive to the actual goals you profess because these good intentions are explicitly in contradiction with reality...and you're unable to see it. There's another i-word for that.

 

I'd be fascinated if you actually read the whole lecture and presented your thoughts on what you agree or disagree with...or what you think is right and wrong (and why).


Edited by MJ1970 - 8/6/12 at 1:38pm

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #6 of 203

Again, how interesting that you espouse a hardcore libertarian philosophy that requires humans to behave rationally and not dick each other over in the name of corporate profits--and yet you lecture me about good intentions and utopias.  Doubling down on that irony, are we?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #7 of 203
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Again, how interesting that you espouse a hardcore libertarian philosophy that requires humans to behave rationally and not dick each other over in the name of corporate profits--and yet you lecture me about good intentions and utopias.  Doubling down on that irony, are we?

 

No, but it is clear that you are. You're also engaging in what's referred to as a straw man fallacy. But go ahead and continue to assume that the good intentions behind your authoritarian liberty-reducing ideas and actions will trump reality.

 

P.S. I'd be fascinated if you actually read the whole lecture and presented your thoughts on what you agree or disagree with...or what you think is right and wrong (and why). I won't hold my breath.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #8 of 203

I see you are invoking the Pee-Wee Herman defense.  Intriguing.  

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #9 of 203
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I see you are invoking the Pee-Wee Herman defense.  Intriguing.  

 

I see you won't even try to defend your well-intended Utopian, reality-ignoring, anti-freedom authoritarian ways. Unsurprising.


Edited by MJ1970 - 8/6/12 at 6:42pm

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #10 of 203

Right out of the right-wing playbook--accuse your opponent of the mistakes you make, dodging the issue.  It is you, MJ, who lives in a fantasy world in which all humans behave rationally and will not **** each other over for profit.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #11 of 203
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Right out of the right-wing playbook--accuse your opponent of the mistakes you make, dodging the issue.  It is you, MJ, who lives in a fantasy world in which all humans behave rationally and will not **** each other over for profit.

 

Whatever. It won't work.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #12 of 203

1000

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #13 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

"What is Economics?"

 

 

 Many people think that economics is a matter of opinions. Economics is not a study of opinions. Economics is a science, and as a science it deals with eternal laws — laws that men are not able to change — laws that remain constant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 I think that statement, in and of itself, explains why it was not part of my required reading list during my economics degree...

post #14 of 203
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hungover View Post

 I think that statement, in and of itself, explains why it was not part of my required reading list during my economics degree...

 

Why is that?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #15 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

 Many people think that economics is a matter of opinions. Economics is not a study of opinions. Economics is a science, and as a science it deals with eternal laws — laws that men are not able to change — laws that remain constant.

 

 

I'm not sure if I agree with this statement. It insinuates that economics is modeled as an inductive, all encompassing theory, but I think that plenty of evidence exists to the contrary. It may deal with eternal laws, yet there are differences of opinions on what those laws consist of and what they address. I'm of the belief that economics and politics are intimately related and cannot be separated, but many of my class mates in the management program believe otherwise.
 
Eventually economics may graduate to a hard science the way your quote describes, but while competing standards exist of how to even define the term, I don't see it happening. Right now, I see it as existing within a loose deductive framework. Theories are proposed based on observed evidence and then confirmed or scrapped based on future outcome. What complicates the issue though is the politics that surrounds it. When both Republican and Democratic biased new sources claim that the Obamacare outcome was a win for their respective parties and a loss for the other, it makes determining theory confirmation very difficult, thus stopping economics from truly functioning as a law based science.
post #16 of 203
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckVader View Post

It insinuates that economics is modeled as an inductive, all encompassing theory, but I think that plenty of evidence exists to the contrary.

 

I don't think it implies that at all.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckVader View Post

It may deal with eternal laws, yet there are differences of opinions on what those laws consist of and what they address.

 

I don't think he's saying that there are no opinion in that field, just refuting the notion that it is all opinion and no science.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckVader View Post

I'm of the belief that economics and politics are intimately related and cannot be separated, but many of my class mates in the management program believe otherwise.

 

I agree.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckVader View Post

Eventually economics may graduate to a hard science...

 

And eventually people won't use unscientific terms like "hard science" and "soft science" to attempt to denigrate certain scientific fields. lol.gif

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckVader View Post

What complicates the issue though is the politics that surrounds it. When both Republican and Democratic biased new sources claim that the Obamacare outcome was a win for their respective parties and a loss for the other, it makes determining theory confirmation very difficult, thus stopping economics from truly functioning as a law based science.

 

I agree that when you view economic situations through the lens of politics (which is not a requirement) things get very distorted and foggy and...partisan.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #17 of 203
Thread Starter 

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #18 of 203
Quote:

" It is quite true, therefore, that each profession has an immediate interest in the continuation, nay, in the extension, of the special obstacle which it is its business to combat."

 

 

 

I read the article...and this really stood out.  I don't believe that it s true in the sense that: 

 

--Physicians are not motivated to continue disease. 

--Teachers are not motivated to continue ignorance

--Notaries are not motivated to promote distrust 

 

It is true that these "obstacles" allow each of the above to be employed.  But here, the obstacle IS the cause.  All three professions are functions of the human condition.  It is unlikely that disease, ignorance and distrust will ever disappear.  These professionals fulfill needs in society, as do many others.  

 

Also:  

 

 


 

Quote:

It is clear also, considering things in the gross, that it would be better for men in the aggregate, or for society, that these obstacles should be as few and feeble as possible.

 

I don't think I agree with that, either.  The author notes that labor will find its way to each obstacle--remove one obstacle, and men will labor overcome another.  What about the pleasure of accomplishment--and not in the material sense?  Isn't work inherent to the human condition?  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #19 of 203
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I read the article...and this really stood out.  I don't believe that it s true in the sense that: 

 

--Physicians are not motivated to continue disease. 

--Teachers are not motivated to continue ignorance

--Notaries are not motivated to promote distrust 

 

I think he's saying that each benefit from these things. That is really kind of a fact. And if these obstacles went away by some miraculous new development, these people would be unemployed in those professions. That would be another fact.

 

These facts combined (forget the specific examples...it is applicable elsewhere also) can motivate people in certain professions to see the obstacles as a benefit.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

These professionals fulfill needs in society, as do many others.

 

Correct, but is these obstacles disappeared, there would no longer be a need for these professions. Very often (and we see this frequently even today) people make an argument from the perspective that obstacles are good (for employment).

 

Let's imagine some scenarios:

 

  1. A brilliant engineer invents a new machine that enables cars to be completely manufactured, without any additional labor, in an hour. Completely eliminating the need for automobile assembly workers.
  2. Someone finally invents the Star Trek transporter and the need for autos/roads, trains, boats and airplanes/airlines (including all the of the jobs producing all of those things) is gone.
  3. Some creative genius develops a new tool and/or technique that enables someone to achieve the full primary school range of education an knowledge in one year and the need for all of the teachers currently employed goes away (or is greatly reduced)?
  4. Some scientist, nutritionist or other genius discovers some approach that enables people to avoid and cure cancer and the need for all of the people currently employed in solving this problem no longer need to be employed in this way?

 

Would these be a good things?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I don't think I agree with that, either.  The author notes that labor will find its way to each obstacle--remove one obstacle, and men will labor overcome another.  What about the pleasure of accomplishment--and not in the material sense?  Isn't work inherent to the human condition?  

 

You don't think that "it would be better for men in the aggregate, or for society, that these obstacles should be as few and feeble as possible." Why is that? That seems odd.


Edited by MJ1970 - 8/15/12 at 9:50am

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #20 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

I think he's saying that each benefit from these things. That is really kind of a fact. And if these obstacles went away by some miraculous new development, these people would be unemployed in those professions. That would be another fact.

 

These facts combined (forget the specific examples...it is applicable elsewhere also) can motivate people in certain professions to see the obstacles as a benefit.

 

 

 

Correct, but is these obstacles disappeared, there would no longer be a need for these professions. Very often (and we see this frequently even today) people make an argument from the perspective that obstacles are good (for employment).

 

Let's imagine some scenarios:

 

  1. A brilliant engineer invents a new machine that enables cars to be completely manufactured, without any additional labor, in an hour. Completely eliminating the need for automobile assembly workers.
  2. Someone finally invents the Star Trek transporter and the need for autos/roads, trains, boats and airplanes/airlines (including all the of the jobs producing all of those things) is gone.
  3. Some creative genius develops a new tool and/or technique that enables someone to achieve the full primary school range of education an knowledge in one year and the need for all of the teachers currently employed goes away (or is greatly reduced)?
  4. Some scientist, nutritionist or other genius discovers some approach that enables people to avoid and cure cancer and the need for all of the people currently employed in solving this problem no longer need to be employed in this way?

 

Would these be a good things?

 

 

Yes, they would be good things.  Human labor would find its way into other endeavors, according to the article.  Let me go back to this point:  

 

 

 

Quote:

These facts combined (forget the specific examples...it is applicable elsewhere also) can motivate people in certain professions to see the obstacles as a benefit.

 

 

Every profession exists due to obstacles.  

 


 

 

 

Quote:

 

You don't think that "it would be better for men in the aggregate, or for society, that these obstacles should be as few and feeble as possible." Why is that? That seems odd.

 

 

 

 

Not necessarily, depending on how one views obstacles.  Obstacles are not bad.  Overcoming them creates both economic activity (as the author notes) and more importantly, character, ability and capacity.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #21 of 203
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Every profession exists due to obstacles.


I know.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Not necessarily, depending on how one views obstacles.  Obstacles are not bad.  Overcoming them creates both economic activity (as the author notes)...

 

You may have missed the point. The overcoming obstacles creates economic activity as a "good thing" is exactly the fallacy he's arguing against. Take that argument to it's extreme to see why.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

...and more importantly, character, ability and capacity.  

 

Possibly. However...

 

Ability and capacity to overcome any particular obstacle is worthless if the obstacle doesn't exist.

 

As for character, do you assume that this is the only, primary or best way for it to develop? Perhaps once all other obstacles are out of our way (and Bastiat points out that this will never likely happen...though some obstacles will have been removed, our infinite wants suggest there will always be more still to overcome).


Edited by MJ1970 - 8/15/12 at 2:04pm

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #22 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


I know.

 

 

 

You may have missed the point. The overcoming obstacles creates economic activity as a "good thing" is exactly the fallacy he's arguing against. Take that argument to it's extreme to see why.

 

 

 

Possibly. However...

 

Ability and capacity to overcome any particular obstacle is worthless if the obstacle doesn't exist.

 

As for character, do you assume that this is the only, primary or best way for it to develop? Perhaps once all other obstacles are out of our way (and Bastiat points out that this will never likely happen...though some obstacles will have been removed, our infinite wants suggest there will always be more still to overcome).

 

I don't know whether the economic activity/overcoming obstacles phenomena in good or not.  I do know that it's reality, and probably always will be...unless we get to a point where we live in a Star Trek:  The Next Generation world.  :)  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #23 of 203
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I don't know whether the economic activity/overcoming obstacles phenomena in good or not.  I do know that it's reality, and probably always will be...unless we get to a point where we live in a Star Trek:  The Next Generation world.  :)  

 

You're missing the point of what Bastiat was talking about.

 

1. Yes, we have obstacles between our desires and the fulfillment of those desires.

2. Eliminate of those obstacles is often achieved through the division of labor and trade.

3. Because of #2, it is often assumed that the obstacles are the source of wealth because they create jobs.

 

#3 is incorrect and a fallacy and it is the basis of any number of similarly fallacious arguments and claims that are made even today to support things like trade barriers, bailouts, etc.

 

One of the key phrases in that paper is that labor is not an end in and of itself, it is a means to an end.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #24 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

I don't know whether the economic activity/overcoming obstacles phenomena in good or not.  I do know that it's reality, and probably always will be...unless we get to a point where we live in a Star Trek:  The Next Generation world.  :)  

I'd go for that.  Universal healthcare, the pursuit of knowledge through scientific reasoning, and a distinct lack of a ruling class to siphon away all the gains in worker productivity.  I'll take it.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #25 of 203
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I'd go for that.  Universal healthcare, the pursuit of knowledge through scientific reasoning, and a distinct lack of a ruling class to siphon away all the gains in worker productivity.  I'll take it.

 

You are a true Marxist aren't you?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #26 of 203

I don't have a problem with inequality of outcomes as long as there is an outcome floor.  No one, regardless of circumstance, should go without food, shelter, safety or healthcare.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #27 of 203
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

No one, regardless of circumstance, should go without food, shelter, safety or healthcare.

 

It isn't a question of the goals...it's a question of the means and methods.


Edited by MJ1970 - 8/15/12 at 8:15pm

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #28 of 203

Your means and methods have zero chance of producing a floor like that.  Zero.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #29 of 203
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Your means and methods have zero chance of producing a floor like that.  Zero.

 

Thanks for sharing your opinion.


Edited by MJ1970 - 8/15/12 at 9:12pm

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #30 of 203

You don't even want a floor, though, so why would you make that same passive-aggressive comment you always make whenever someone badmouths libertarian pipe dreams?  Your means and methods do not aim for such a floor nor provide any means to safeguard one.  Are you taking out the cognitive dissonance between your libertarian ideals and the teachings of your alleged savior on me?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #31 of 203
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

You don't even want a floor, though

 

I don't support a statutory, government-enforced floor, that's true. But that's not the same as saying that I don't want to see the standard of living elevated for everyone.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

so why would you make that same passive-aggressive comment you always make whenever someone badmouths libertarian pipe dreams?

 

Thanking you for sharing your opinion about what you think the results of the means and methods I support would be is a "passive aggressive" thing to do? Odd.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Your means and methods do not aim for such a floor nor provide any means to safeguard one.

 

They may not aim for one, but they end up effectively creating one by elevating everyone's standard of living.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Are you taking out the cognitive dissonance between your libertarian ideals and the teachings of your alleged savior on me?

 

Not sure what you mean by this question. Perhaps you can clarify what you mean.


Edited by MJ1970 - 8/16/12 at 6:20am

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #32 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I don't have a problem with inequality of outcomes as long as there is an outcome floor.  No one, regardless of circumstance, should go without food, shelter, safety or healthcare.

 

I actually agree with you for the most part.  But the problem is where you define that floor, and how you achieve it.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #33 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I don't have a problem with inequality of outcomes as long as there is an outcome floor.  No one, regardless of circumstance, should go without food, shelter, safety or healthcare.

"We must all be alike. Not everyone born free and equal, as the Constitution says, but everyone made equal. Each man the image of every other; then all are happy, for there are no mountains to make them cower, to judge themselves against." --Fahrenheit 451

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #34 of 203

Please settle down, BR. You have a tendency to lose your temper when people say things you don't like, and it often ruins what otherwise might be a productive discussion.

 

What you fail to understand is that human rights do not come from a group of individuals calling themselves government. Every human being has them. They exist whether a group of individuals calling themselves a government says they do or not.

 

The only legitimate purpose of government (if, indeed, there is one) is to protect and secure those rights to every individual.

 

Frederic Bastiat said it best: "Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place."

 

Now please explain how you have a "right" to products and services that improve and extend your life and to have these products and services paid for with money that is taken from other people under threat of violence.

 

Would that "right" exist independent of government? If you are fighting an illness and do not have the means to pay for healthcare, do you have the "right" to go to your neighbor's house and demand that he pay for it under threat of violence?

 

And this, really, is the main difference between you and I - and the basis for each of our arguments. You want to bring about your ideal world through force and violence. I want to bring about a better world through the free exchange of ideas, peace and voluntary action.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #35 of 203
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Please settle down, BR. You have a tendency to lose your temper when people say things you don't like, and it often ruins what otherwise might be a productive discussion.

 

What you fail to understand is that human rights do not come from a group of individuals calling themselves government. Every human being has them. They exist whether a group of individuals calling themselves a government says they do or not.

 

The only legitimate purpose of government (if, indeed, there is one) is to protect and secure those rights to every individual.

 

Frederic Bastiat said it best: "Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place."

 

Now please explain how you have a "right" to products and services that improve and extend your life and to have these products and services paid for with money that is taken from other people under threat of violence.

 

Would that "right" exist independent of government? If you are fighting an illness and do not have the means to pay for healthcare, do you have the "right" to go to your neighbor's house and demand that he pay for it under threat of violence?

 

And this, really, is the main difference between you and I - and the basis for each of our arguments. You want to bring about your ideal world through force and violence. I want to bring about a better world through the free exchange of ideas, peace and voluntary action.

 

Very, very well stated.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #36 of 203
Thread Starter 

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #37 of 203
Thread Starter 

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #38 of 203
The CONSUMPTION of resources to support a society is not the waste of resources. That's what you don't get.

Everything asserted here about "wasted resources" has removed life from the equation and all we're left with is a dollar sign.

The fact is, if you make enough poor people poor enough, desperate enough, then they will work for $1 an hour rather than nothing. That's exactly what would happen if there is no minimum wage and no welfare.

The goal is not the maximizing of profit, growth, GDP. The goal is people living their lives comfortably. Even lazy people or people born on the wrong side of the tracks.
post #39 of 203
I don't deny that welfare and minimum wage affect growth. Without them, we could grow faster. But growth is not the goal. Life is the goal.
post #40 of 203
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I don't deny that welfare and minimum wage affect growth. Without them, we could grow faster. But growth is not the goal. Life is the goal.

 

And how much life will you have when your wage goes to zero (unemployed)?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Understanding economics