The Problem with a Market Society

[Toro]

probably why he said the period after the war huh nerd

When referencing that time period, does that also mean blacks and women as less than people also represent libertarian paradise? Or do we conveniently brush that under the rug because it doesn't fit the neat little narrative?

BTW, economic growth per capita during that time was no different than the next 100 years.

However, there were 13 recessions, the greatest frequency of recessions in the history of the nation. Literally, half the time from 1865 to 1914, 9000 days, was spent in recession.

http://www.nber.org/cycles.html

There were multiple financial panics. That's why the Fed came into being in the first place.

So if your libertarian paradise means 25 of the next 50 years in recession, you can keep it.

 

[Toro]

Slavery ended because of a war that killed a couple hundred thousand people.

No it did not.

My mistake.

"A couple hundred thousand people" didn't die.

618,000 people did.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/s...cent-in-new-estimate.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Thanks.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Slavery ended because of a war that killed a couple hundred thousand people.

No it did not.

My mistake.

"A couple hundred thousand people" didn't die.

618,000 people did.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/s...cent-in-new-estimate.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Thanks.

Still wrong, the war might have been justified over slavery, but it did not end it.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The problem is in equating the market and society.

Bingo, which is why I stopped taking the OP seriously. Discussing the merits of a free market with an idiot that thinks the economy and society are the same thing is impossible.

How are they different? Isn't an economic system/policy a product of a society? I'm confused, please edify me.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The problem is in equating the market and society.

Bingo, which is why I stopped taking the OP seriously. Discussing the merits of a free market with an idiot that thinks the economy and society are the same thing is impossible.

How are they different? Isn't an economic system/policy a product of a society? I'm confused, please edify me.

In a word, no.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Bingo, which is why I stopped taking the OP seriously. Discussing the merits of a free market with an idiot that thinks the economy and society are the same thing is impossible.

How are they different? Isn't an economic system/policy a product of a society? I'm confused, please edify me.

In a word, no.

Because you say so? I know you're a partisan hack and not very bright. I know that. So why prove it with such a stupid response?

 

[Toro]

No it did not.

My mistake.

"A couple hundred thousand people" didn't die.

618,000 people did.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/s...cent-in-new-estimate.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Thanks.

Still wrong, the war might have been justified over slavery, but it did not end it.

What ended it?

 

[dblack]

Bingo, which is why I stopped taking the OP seriously. Discussing the merits of a free market with an idiot that thinks the economy and society are the same thing is impossible.

How are they different? Isn't an economic system/policy a product of a society? I'm confused, please edify me.

In a word, no.

I'd say it is. But that's the point, it's a by-product of society, not the whole enchilada. The vast bulk of our interactions with other people in a social context have nothing to do with trade or markets.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How are they different? Isn't an economic system/policy a product of a society? I'm confused, please edify me.

In a word, no.

Because you say so? I know you're a partisan hack and not very bright. I know that. So why prove it with such a stupid response?

No, because you are stupid.

Tell me something, O he of the impossible to categorize stupidity, is the global market and economy the product of some global society I didn't notice? The last time I looked every single country had its own individual society, yet they all trade in the same market.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

My mistake.

"A couple hundred thousand people" didn't die.

618,000 people did.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/s...cent-in-new-estimate.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Thanks.

Still wrong, the war might have been justified over slavery, but it did not end it.

What ended it?

So far, nothing, it still exists.

This map shows where the world?s 30 million slaves live. There are 60,000 in the U.S.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How are they different? Isn't an economic system/policy a product of a society? I'm confused, please edify me.

In a word, no.

I'd say it is. But that's the point, it's a by-product of society, not the whole enchilada. The vast bulk of our interactions with other people in a social context have nothing to do with trade or markets.

That would depend on what market we are talking about, wouldn't it? The thing is, it really doesn't matter what society, the government, or what economic system a country uses, markets still run independently based on clearly defined laws that exist completely independent of anything man can do, kind of like the weather. We can fiddle here and there ot change little things, and the impacts are subject to the butterfly effect, which means they can be magnified, but no one has ever managed to create a market the behaves according the rules of communism or socialism. Markets exist outside, and independent of society.

 

[gnarlylove]

How are they different? Isn't an economic system/policy a product of a society? I'm confused, please edify me.

I'd say it is. But that's the point, it's a by-product of society, not the whole enchilada. The vast bulk of our interactions with other people in a social context have nothing to do with trade or markets.

While they are supposedly separate, without society, one does not have a market. However, as markets enter new realms (like Shakespeare in the Park or Linestanding for hearings in Washington) they tend to crowd out norms that formerly governed our behavior.

Instead of treating each other like humans with equal rights to see a Congressional hearing or Shakespeare we have allowed markets to create profit where profit did not exist.

Anyway, markets are not real. To think markets exist independent of human society is not properly understanding them. They are not concrete entities and stand independent of us. They are by-products of human creation. They are the outgrowth of human interactions based on human needs and human desires.

So while society is tangible (the community of humans working together) markets are not. However, they have tangible effects just like society. And these effects almost in every case reduce humans or social interactions to a price. Humans are priceless as well as social interactions since they provide us with something money cannot buy (or at least should not be allowed to buy). Yet the market is setting a price on people and genuine interactions and I assert this is immoral or at least corrupting. For children and youth, even people my age--26--who lack concern for their philosophy, will easily subsume this demeanor towards other humans. This meme would and has spread rapidly into all sorts of areas markets traditionally do not enter. Yet I know we both agree market values and norms confuse humans and genuine interaction with items. This was my basic point.

So I argue that markets are corrupting when it comes areas typically governed by societal norms. I'd further argue that markets are corrupting in general (and should be done away with or overhauled) but this induction is beyond the scope of the evidence I've presented and isn't thus a viable argument. But I believe it.

 

[gnarlylove]

I'd say it is. But that's the point, it's a by-product of society, not the whole enchilada. The vast bulk of our interactions with other people in a social context have nothing to do with trade or markets.

Lost my train of thought haha.
I wanted to say markets, as our society uses them today, are utterly essential for society. To say human interactions happen outside markets is missing the point. If one does not participate in the market they either die, eat and survive from discarded market items as homeless folks, or must become a hermit or invite a bunch of hermits to make tools from nature and create sustainable living scenarios.

By participate in markets I mean we must accept fiat currency, accept wage slavery (face it, if you are born in poverty you must start by selling your body for survival and many millions in America are engaged in this), accept the police and laws as authoritative (otherwise they terminate your freedoms and ability to participate in society).

This is a lot to demand from a person born into this world in order to merely engage in society.
In order to be alive and have non-market interactions, we must accept market conditions as final (or do what I said above.)

If this is true, then it sure sounds like your statement that most human interactions occur outside the market is moot. The market dominates the lives of those participating in society. To not accept the market is to make it wildly difficult to even live, let alone actively participate in positive social interactions.

In other words, though your statement is technically accurate, it misses the point. It deceives us into thinking the market is independent of our day to day conversations and interactions but the market is baked into the base of societal human. To act as an empathetic human towards every pursuit and interaction is to effectively sign up for being a looser in the marketplace. The market has taught us we must consider ourselves first in order to succeed. Although some people and organizations succeed based on empathetic principles, they are themselves engaged in a mixed approach of empathy and ego. For markets to put the ego to the fore and sometimes punish empathy is a sick society.

And yes, by markets I mean the ones we have today. I am not equivocating on markets by meaning simple trade and bartering. No, how markets function today are essential for humanity to live. And I think this demonstrates a massive flaw since as I've argued elsewhere that markets have corrosive effects on human relationships.

 

[Indeependent]

In a word, no.

Because you say so? I know you're a partisan hack and not very bright. I know that. So why prove it with such a stupid response?

No, because you are stupid.

Tell me something, O he of the impossible to categorize stupidity, is the global market and economy the product of some global society I didn't notice? The last time I looked every single country had its own individual society, yet they all trade in the same market.

World Trade Organization.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How are they different? Isn't an economic system/policy a product of a society? I'm confused, please edify me.

I'd say it is. But that's the point, it's a by-product of society, not the whole enchilada. The vast bulk of our interactions with other people in a social context have nothing to do with trade or markets.

While they are supposedly separate, without society, one does not have a market. However, as markets enter new realms (like Shakespeare in the Park or Linestanding for hearings in Washington) they tend to crowd out norms that formerly governed our behavior.

Instead of treating each other like humans with equal rights to see a Congressional hearing or Shakespeare we have allowed markets to create profit where profit did not exist.

Anyway, markets are not real. To think markets exist independent of human society is not properly understanding them. They are not concrete entities and stand independent of us. They are by-products of human creation. They are the outgrowth of human interactions based on human needs and human desires.

So while society is tangible (the community of humans working together) markets are not. However, they have tangible effects just like society. And these effects almost in every case reduce humans or social interactions to a price. Humans are priceless as well as social interactions since they provide us with something money cannot buy (or at least should not be allowed to buy). Yet the market is setting a price on people and genuine interactions and I assert this is immoral or at least corrupting. For children and youth, even people my age--26--who lack concern for their philosophy, will easily subsume this demeanor towards other humans. This meme would and has spread rapidly into all sorts of areas markets traditionally do not enter. Yet I know we both agree market values and norms confuse humans and genuine interaction with items. This was my basic point.

So I argue that markets are corrupting when it comes areas typically governed by societal norms. I'd further argue that markets are corrupting in general (and should be done away with or overhauled) but this induction is beyond the scope of the evidence I've presented and isn't thus a viable argument. But I believe it.

That is an interesting, if specious, argument.

If you look at the way things actually work you will see that, even in the absence of a social structure, people still trade with each other. In fact, trade will exist outside society if it has to, trade is the driving force in human interaction. Without trade we wouldn't even be apes.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'd say it is. But that's the point, it's a by-product of society, not the whole enchilada. The vast bulk of our interactions with other people in a social context have nothing to do with trade or markets.

Lost my train of thought haha.
I wanted to say markets, as our society uses them today, are utterly essential for society. To say human interactions happen outside markets is missing the point. If one does not participate in the market they either die, eat and survive from discarded market items as homeless folks, or must become a hermit or invite a bunch of hermits to make tools from nature and create sustainable living scenarios.

By participate in markets I mean we must accept fiat currency, accept wage slavery (face it, if you are born in poverty you must start by selling your body for survival and many millions in America are engaged in this), accept the police and laws as authoritative (otherwise they terminate your freedoms and ability to participate in society).

This is a lot to demand from a person born into this world in order to merely engage in society.
In order to be alive and have non-market interactions, we must accept market conditions as final (or do what I said above.)

If this is true, then it sure sounds like your statement that most human interactions occur outside the market is moot. The market dominates the lives of those participating in society. To not accept the market is to make it wildly difficult to even live, let alone actively participate in positive social interactions.

In other words, though your statement is technically accurate, it misses the point. It deceives us into thinking the market is independent of our day to day conversations and interactions but the market is baked into the base of societal human.

And yes, by markets I mean the ones we have today. I am not equivocating on markets by meaning simple trade and bartering. No, how markets function today are essential for humanity to live. And I think this demonstrates a massive flaw since as I've argued elsewhere that markets have corrosive effects on human relationships.

I have one word for you, barter.

 

[gnarlylove]

That is an interesting, if specious, argument.

If you look at the way things actually work you will see that, even in the absence of a social structure, people still trade with each other. In fact, trade will exist outside society if it has to, trade is the driving force in human interaction. Without trade we wouldn't even be apes.

I do not mean mere trade. Your argument is based on a different definition of markets. In other words, you have just committed the fallacy of equivocation. However, I sincerely respect your post as it involved genuine discussion. I want to thank you and encourage this from you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That is an interesting, if specious, argument.

If you look at the way things actually work you will see that, even in the absence of a social structure, people still trade with each other. In fact, trade will exist outside society if it has to, trade is the driving force in human interaction. Without trade we wouldn't even be apes.

I do not mean mere trade. Your argument is based on a different definition of markets. In other words, you have just committed the fallacy of equivocation. However, I sincerely respect your post as it involved genuine discussion. I want to thank you and encourage this from you.

Different definition of market?

Tell me something, oh purveyor of all things idiotic, what the fuck is your definition of market?

 

[gnarlylove]

You identified bartering or trading. This is the simple exchange of goods and services for other goods. This is a rudimentary definition of a market and should not be confused with our current monetary system. Barter or trade has been going on as long as humans have existed in early forms of society such as chiefdoms.

The other definition of markets is far more complex than the exchange of goods where the transaction immediately produces results. Adam Smith is well known for his elucidation of market economy. Barter is a mere part and parcel of modern markets. So you're right to think bartering/trading happens today. But it's much more complex. We exchange money for money and one currency for another. The stock market cannot operate as it does today without fiat currency. Many modern transactions have nexus of effects unlike in a barter economy. Once the transaction is complete in a barter system, both parties can be assured they have a final product and few if any effects will be realized after the exchange event. In our current markets it can take months and years for effects of transactions to be realized. Indeed, this results in the stock market can be one of systemic risk for the whole society as we saw in 2008. Bartering only makes systemic risks impossible.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You identified bartering or trading. This is the simple exchange of goods and services for other goods. This is a rudimentary definition of a market and should not be confused with our current monetary system. Barter or trade has been going on as long as humans have existed in early forms of society such as chiefdoms.

The other definition of markets is far more complex than the exchange of goods where the transaction immediately produces results. Adam Smith is well known for his elucidation of market economy. Barter is a mere part and parcel of modern markets. So you're right to think bartering/trading happens today. But it's much more complex. We exchange money for money and one currency for another. The stock market cannot operate as it does today without fiat currency. Many modern transactions have nexus of effects unlike in a barter economy. Once the transaction is complete in a barter system, both parties can be assured they have a final product and few if any effects will be realized after the exchange event. In our current markets it can take months and years for effects of transactions to be realized. Indeed, this results in the stock market can be one of systemic risk for the whole society as we saw in 2008. Bartering only makes systemic risks impossible.

Can you really be that fucking stupid? What the fuck do you think money is, nitwit? Is it something that somehow cancels the value that people put on things, or does your brain simply fail to grasp that money is just a way to facilitate trade and/or barter?